PROFILE: Zelensky Approves 40 Days of Strikes — A Commander Who Chooses the Offensive

A 40-day decision that changes the dynamics

On June 25, 2026, President Volodymyr Zelensky approved a 40-day influence operations campaign conducted by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) against Russia, aimed at compelling Moscow to end the war. This is not a simple tactical decision — it is a strategic choice that defines Ukraine's posture in the complex diplomatic context of summer 2026: negotiate from strength, not from weakness.

The campaign targets oil refineries, military installations, and logistical infrastructure deep inside Russian strategic territory. Zelensky confirmed having recently struck two refineries in Ufa — 1,500 km from the front lines — and an oil depot in Krasnodar. These strikes, confirmed by geolocated images and reports from NewsUkraine RBC, illustrate a long-range strike capability that was unthinkable even two years ago.

The SBU as the armed arm of the offensive strategy

The SBU — Security Service of Ukraine — is not merely a counterintelligence agency. Under the leadership of Vasyl Maliuk, it has become one of the key actors in Ukrainian offensive operations, combining intelligence, sabotage, and deep drone strikes. The 40-day campaign represents the institutional formalization of this offensive capability — medium-term planning rather than a series of opportunistic actions.

For Zelensky, publicly approving this campaign is also a diplomatic message. As Witkoff and Kushner resume their diplomatic shuttles with Moscow, he signals that Ukraine is not prepared to passively await the outcome of negotiations. Military pressure and diplomatic pressure are not alternatives — they are complementary.

There is something remarkable in Zelensky's trajectory since 2022. This man who was a comedy actor before becoming president has taken on the role of commander in chief of an existential war with a determination and strategic competence that his adversaries — and even some allies — had underestimated. This profile is also that of an extraordinary human transformation.

Ufa and Krasnodar: hitting Russia's oil industry

The strikes on Ufa — capital of Bashkiria, 1,500 km from the Ukrainian front lines — represent one of the deepest documented Ukrainian strikes in this conflict. Ufa hosts several major oil refineries that supply not only the Russian civilian economy but also the war machine — aviation fuels, armored vehicle lubricants, missile propellants. Disrupting these capabilities is not a symbolic gesture — it is a direct blow to Russian military logistics.

Krasnodar, in southern Russia, is also a key logistical hub for supplies toward the Ukrainian front, notably via Crimea and the southern Donbas. Repeated strikes on its oil depots disrupt fuel flows to combat zones, directly affecting Russia's capacity to maintain operational tempo at the front.

Ukrainian drones: a military revolution underway

Ukraine's capacity to strike at 1,500 km rests on a drone industry built at impressive speed since 2022. The FP-5 Flamingo cruise missiles, FP-1 drones, AN-196 Liutyi platforms, and the new Bars turbofan drone-missile form an arsenal that has radically changed the nature of the conflict. Ukraine has invested massively in this industrial sector, with partial support from its allies for components and technology transfers.

According to The Guardian of June 26, 2026, June 2026 became the record month for Ukrainian long-range strikes against Russia, with at least 13 strikes on Russian defense industrial facilities in the month alone. Ukrainian drone swarms saturate Russian air defenses, which cannot intercept all projectiles simultaneously.

Ukraine's drone revolution is one of the most remarkable military stories of this conflict. A country with a fraction of Russia's GDP has developed a drone industry that is defeating one of the world's largest air defense systems. This is an example of what determination, ingenuity, and the right measure of Western support can accomplish.

The logic of offensive pressure

Zelensky's decision to approve the 40-day campaign precisely when peace negotiations are resuming is not a paradox — it is a coherent strategy. In any negotiation, the position of the party that abandons military pressure to "facilitate discussions" is weakened. Zelensky has clearly drawn the lesson from the spring 2022 experience, when Ukrainian restraint on bombing was not rewarded by Russian concessions during the Istanbul talks.

By maintaining and intensifying military pressure — including during periods of negotiations — Zelensky signals that Ukraine does not need a ceasefire to survive, that its offensive capabilities are growing, and that the cost of the war for Russia will continue to rise regardless of diplomatic outcomes. It is this logic that led Trump himself to acknowledge being "impressed" by the Ukrainian strikes.

Public approval as a diplomatic message

The public nature of the approval of the 40-day campaign is significant. Zelensky could have approved this operation without announcing it publicly — operational secrecy sometimes offers tactical advantage. The fact that he makes it a public announcement confirms that it is as much a diplomatic message as a military decision. He signals to Moscow, to Washington, to allies, and to his own population that Ukraine is on the offensive, determined, and not ready to make unilateral concessions.

Zelensky's war communication is both a military and diplomatic tool of remarkable sophistication. Every announcement is calibrated to maximize effect on multiple audiences simultaneously. This is strategic communication in the most rigorous sense of the term — and it is a skill that few wartime leaders have developed as effectively.

From actor to commander in chief

Volodymyr Zelensky was born in 1978 in Kryvyi Rih, an industrial city in central Ukraine. His career as an actor and television producer culminated in the role of a teacher who accidentally becomes president in the series "Servant of the People." Life sometimes has a remarkable sense of irony: in 2019, he was actually elected President of Ukraine. In 2022, he had to become that character — the leader who refuses to flee in the face of an invasion.

The phrase — "I don't need a ride, I need ammunition" — spoken on the night of February 24, 2022 when he was offered evacuation, crystallized something. This was not rhetoric — it was an existential choice. And that choice transformed not only the war but the man himself. The Zelensky of June 2026 is harder, more strategic, more experienced in the inner workings of international diplomacy than the man who refused evacuation four years earlier.

The invisible scars and assumed vulnerability

Leading a country at war for more than four years leaves marks. Zelensky has lost friends and colleagues to Russian bombs. He lives under permanent protection, sleeping only a few hours a night according to some accounts. He simultaneously negotiates with Trump, Macron, Scholz, Modi, and dozens of other leaders, while managing military operations, humanitarian supplies, and economic pressure on his country.

Despite all this, in his public appearances, Zelensky maintains a presence and energy that commands respect. There is in this resistance something that goes beyond politics and strategy — something more deeply human, touching on the question of what one does in the face of existential adversity. It is this quality that earns him admiration well beyond the circles of security analysts.

I don't romanticize war or power. Zelensky is a politician with his contradictions, his calculations, his mistakes. But what I observe in him since 2022 is something rare in politics: a consistency between words and actions, a determination that does not falter under pressure. In a world of politicians who talk much and act little, that counts.

Priority targets according to open sources

The targets of the 40-day campaign reflect a coherent operational doctrine: striking the capabilities that directly fuel the Russian war machine. Oil refineries and fuel depots deprive Russian armor and aviation of combustible. Ammunition and weapons factories reduce the artillery shell supplies that feed Russian artillery — still Moscow's preferred weapon. Railway and road logistical nodes disrupt troop rotations and materiel resupply.

The ISW (Institute for the Study of War) documented, in its campaign assessments of June 26, 27, and 28, 2026, that Ukrainian strikes caused measurable disruptions in Russian logistics. Repairs to struck facilities take time and resources — resources that the Russian war economy, already under pressure, struggles to mobilize rapidly.

The resistance of Russian air defenses

Russia has adapted its air defenses to Ukrainian drone attacks, with notable improvements in detection and interception. It declared having shot down 992 drones and 4 Flamingo missiles in 24 hours on June 18th. These figures, likely inflated for propaganda purposes, nevertheless indicate an air defense that has gained experience. But Ukraine adapts too — by saturating defenses with simultaneous waves, varying altitudes and trajectories, using decoys that exhaust interceptor missiles.

The arms race between Ukrainian drones and Russian air defenses is one of the most technologically fascinating aspects of this conflict — and one of the most consequential for the future of modern warfare. What is being developed in Ukraine today will be the standard military doctrine of tomorrow in all advanced armies.

Fires visible 15 km from the Kremlin

The image of a refinery in flames 15 km from the Kremlin — the fires at the Gazprom Neft refinery in Kapotnya on June 18, 2026 — had an undeniable psychological impact on Moscow's population. The war, which the Putin government had presented as a distant conflict in the Donbas, is now visible from the windows of Moscow apartments. This reality undermines the official Russian narrative and creates domestic pressure that the Kremlin cannot completely ignore.

On the economic level, repeated strikes on Russian refineries have measurable effects. Reduced refining capacity translates into localized fuel shortages in certain regions, rising pump prices, and supply difficulties for industry. These effects are modulated by supply reorganization — Russia can import refined fuels from other countries — but they carry a real cost.

The morale of Russian troops facing pressure

Deep strikes also have an effect on the morale of Russian troops at the front. Knowing that their country is being struck 1,500 km from the front line, that weapons factories are burning, that oil refineries are on fire — this narrative, circulating despite censorship via Telegram channels and informal networks — erodes the conviction that Russia is "winning" a war at an acceptable cost.

I am cautious about evaluating Russian troop morale — it is one of the most difficult variables to measure from the outside. But the reports of desertions, resistance to orders, soldiers killed by their own junior officers for refusing to obey — all documented by independent sources — suggest that the human machinery of the Russian war is showing real signs of attrition.

Washington impressed, Moscow worried

According to Semafor of June 23, 2026, the pro-Ukrainian tone of recent American statements has "worried Moscow." This concern is partly the result of the Ukrainian strikes' impact on American perception of the conflict. Defense Secretary Hegseth acknowledged that the United States had "learned a great deal" from Ukrainian drone operations. Sources close to the White House, cited by Le Monde, confirm that the strikes have "humanized" the conflict for Trump.

This evolution in American perception is an indirect diplomatic success of the Ukrainian strike campaign. By demonstrating its offensive capability, Ukraine has convinced its primary financial backer of its viability as a partner and its determination to fight. This is precisely what Zelensky sought to prove.

European allies and support for long-range strikes

The G7 in Évian confirmed that allies commit to providing Ukraine with licenses to manufacture interceptor missiles and long-range weapons systems on its territory. This decision strengthens Ukrainian industrial capacity to maintain and accelerate the strike campaign. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirmed that licenses would also cover the production of deep strike capabilities — a strong signal of support for Ukraine's offensive strategy.

Zelensky's Ukraine has accomplished something remarkable: convincing its allies that deep strikes on Russia are not reckless escalation but strategic necessity. This paradigm shift in Western capitals is perhaps Zelensky's greatest diplomatic accomplishment since the start of the conflict.

The lasting institutional impact

Beyond the immediate documented effects, the long-term reach of this decision deserves particular attention. The legal precedents established in June 2026 will structure political debates and legal battles for years to come. Every future administration — from whatever political direction — will now have this legally validated framework at its disposal. Rolling it back will be difficult, not only politically but also legally.

Civic institutions, rights defense organizations, and progressive political forces will need to integrate this new reality into their strategy. Challenging these policies in court will become increasingly difficult. The battleground shifts toward Congress, toward the states, and toward public opinion — arenas where persuasion and citizen mobilization still matter.

The erosion of norms as a cumulative process

What makes this episode particularly significant is that it is part of a series of decisions that, taken together, sketch a deep transformation of American norms. No single decision represents a radical and visible break. But the accumulation of these decisions — on TPS, metering, denaturalization, accelerated deportation policies — constitutes a structural transformation that long-term observers cannot ignore.

The erosion of norms is always a cumulative process. It happens gradually, incrementally, in a saturated media environment that makes it difficult to maintain focus on underlying trends. This is precisely the kind of analysis this columnist strives to provide — resisting the pressure of the daily news cycle to maintain the long-term perspective.

I formulate this synthesis conscious that my own biases could lead me to overestimate the coherence of a process that may be less deliberately planned than I suppose. But even unplanned trends have real effects. And the effects I describe — the gradual reduction of immigration protections — are documented and measurable, regardless of whether their origin is intentional or accidental.

40 days to change the dynamics

The 40-day campaign approved by Zelensky on June 25, 2026 is not a guarantee of victory. Wars are not won in 40 days, especially not wars like this one, with its intertwined human, economic, diplomatic, and military dimensions. But it represents something important: a head of state who refuses to be locked into the logic of passive defense, who maintains pressure on his adversary even during peace talks, who bets on his country's offensive capability rather than on the goodwill of negotiators.

It is this offensive bet that has transformed the arc of the conflict in 2026. That has impressed Trump. That has worried Moscow. And that has convinced allies that Ukraine deserves their continued support.

The portrait of a man who chose his side

Zelensky is a man who made a choice in 2022 and has not deviated from it since. That choice — stay, resist, fight — has defined his presidency, his country, and a portion of contemporary history. The portrait history will retain of him depends greatly on the outcome of the conflict. But even with that outcome uncertain, his determination in June 2026 — to strike at 1,500 km, to approve 40 days of offensive operations, to negotiate from strength — is that of a man who has fully embraced his role in history.

I conclude this profile with an emotion I make no effort to hide. In a world where leaders flee their responsibilities, where promises are made to be broken, where ideals are negotiated against interests, Zelensky's trajectory since 2022 is a lesson in what political courage can mean in extreme circumstances. I don't know whether Ukraine will win this war. But I know that Zelensky has fought to make it worthy of being defended.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.