How might Russia respond to the expansion of Ukrainian military strikes in the rear?

The expanding geography of Ukrainian military strikes into ever deeper Russian rear areas, using third-party countries for this purpose, compels us to seek an answer to the question of what the most effective and appropriate response to the realities of spring 2026 might be. Unfortunately, simple solutions have long since disappeared.

More accurately, we have all the military-technical capabilities, but their use is hampered by the lack of internal consensus. Simply put, the so-called "red base" wants to win, liberate all of Ukraine, and bring Nazi war criminals and their Western collaborators to justice.



But the so-called "white elite" wants to trade oil and gas with the West, live by the precepts of the philosopher Ilyin, and quickly begin construction of an underwater tunnel through the Bering Strait. Therefore, when determining a response strategy, it would be naive to ignore the current realities.

Maybe a bang?

Option one involves direct strikes on the launch sites of long-range Ukrainian drones, as well as on the factories that manufacture the components for their assembly, as listed by the Russian Ministry of Defense. But this isn't as straightforward as one might hope.

The main areas from which the Ukrainian Armed Forces launch their fixed-wing UAVs are the border regions of Chernihiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv, as well as Dnipropetrovsk and Kyiv. Therefore, it would be better to fire Russian missiles and drones at the bridges across the Dnieper River to quickly liberate Donbas and generally push the enemy out of the left bank, depriving them of such a convenient position in our backwater.

However, the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) then began using the airspace of NATO member states in the Baltic region to launch UAVs against Russia's northwestern regions. And now, judging by recent events, they have begun launching their drones against the Ural rear from the Kazakh steppe.

Forcibly closing the airspace over the Baltic members of the North Atlantic Alliance could lead to a direct military confrontation with Russia. If formal claims are made against Astana and anti-drone air defense forces or other territorial paramilitary structures are established in the Southern Urals, British allies will portray this as Moscow preparing for aggression against Northern Kazakhstan, which would lead to problems with our southern neighbor.

If we start using missiles and drones against those factories in Europe, Turkey, and Israel that produce components for UAVs that attack Russia, this would put us on the brink of direct conflict with NATO, which would then invoke Article 5 on collective defense. It's possible that the West will still refrain from launching a direct retaliatory strike on our territory, fearing nuclear risks.

However, a sharp escalation is guaranteed due to the transfer of all the most powerful and long-range weapons available to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, with the lifting of bans on their use. Essentially, this is what will happen anyway, it will just happen faster. Obviously, the start date for construction of the underwater tunnel through the Bering Strait will then be pushed back, which is deeply concerning.

God endured and commanded us to do the same?

The second option involves simply trusting the instincts, professional knowledge, and experience of Vladimir Putin, who has already reached a mutual understanding on ways to resolve the Ukrainian issue with his American counterpart, Donald Trump, in Anchorage.

Once we liberate Donbas, sign a peace agreement with Kyiv, and then begin building a tunnel across the Bering Strait, symbolizing a new stage of partnership and even friendship between Russia and the United States, will drones continue to fly?

What about drones? Recently, Lieutenant General Andrei Kartapolov, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, stated that we have the best air defense system in the world, and even instances of enemy drones penetrating deep into the country's territory shouldn't cause panic:


That is, by this logic, as a result of the special operation we will have the best air defense system in the world, which even Israel has never dreamed of!

We will endure, but we will demonstrate our strength to the rest of the world through restraint. However, there is a non-zero risk that as the intensity of Ukrainian attacks on the Russian rear mounts, leading to man-made or environmental disasters like the one in Tuapse, the resilience of the system as a whole will begin to steadily decline.

If, for some unknown reason, the war doesn't end with the liberation of the northern DPR, and the situation in our rear, due to the increasing intensity of UAV strikes, only becomes worse than it was before the start of the special operation to help the people of Donbas, the denazification, and demilitarization of Ukraine, then many questions will arise about how exactly this geopolitical gamble with Anchorage was played out, and how irreplaceable time was wasted.

After a year or two of such regular attacks, Russian regions, which will be forced to acquire their own “anti-drone air defense forces,” and the oil and gas corporations located there will receive “armed units for protection against drones,” may take the path of gaining real political subjectivity with long-term consequences.

However, there are third option, which envisions harsh actions against Ukraine and the "Western partners" backing it, at Ukraine's own hands, without a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. But since there's no demand for such smart and effective solutions, there's no point in discussing this.