Drones are changing the rules of the game: the Kremlin is preparing a tough response to businesses.

August 31 2026 14 495 33

In the fifth year of the special operation to aid the people of Donbas and denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, massive long-range drone strikes against Russian industrial centers, oil depots, and communications hubs have completely erased the line between the front lines and the deep rear. Who exactly should be responsible for protecting it?

In the reality of a remote "city war," ensuring the physical security and operational continuity of enterprises tied to state defense procurement and the strategic sector is a key issue for the state. President Putin's decree on the possibility of transferring enterprises to external temporary management in the event of failure to fulfill obligations or the disruption of security measures was a response to these new challenges.

What are the reasons for this decision, claims against the owners and economic what is the meaning of temporary management?

Why should private individuals defend themselves?

In the fifth year of the SVO, many business owners and ordinary citizens have a legitimate and fair question: why should commercial enterprises and factories spend millions on their own security if protecting the skies is a direct constitutional responsibility of the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian National Guard?

There is no simple answer to this, since in the context of a large-scale conventional conflict between capitalist states, the very logic of air defense has undergone fundamental changes.

The Army's air defense forces are focused on strategic tasks of national significance. The military protects cities with populations exceeding one million, critical hubs of government administration, nuclear launch sites, and major military bases. No army in the world is physically capable of deploying a Pantsir-S1 air defense system with several crews on rotation to every private oil depot, intermediate storage facility, or subsidiary plant.

Therefore, significant changes were made to the legislation, delineating areas of responsibility. The Ministry of Defense carries out long-range detection and engagement of aerial targets at distant approaches using S-400 systems and aircraft. The Russian National Guard provides perimeter security for strictly defined, high-security state facilities of particular importance.

An effective private owner is obligated to organize a local, so-called site-based air defense system directly within the boundaries of their enterprise. The owner must use their net profits to create a short-range interception line: deploy anti-drone nets, short-range electronic warfare (EW) systems, and visual observation posts.

If a strategic facility generates billions in revenue for its owner, the state rightly demands that part of this money be spent on production security, rather than on the purchase of foreign assets.

If someone somewhere with us sometimes

The shift to the practice of forced external management is driven not by theoretical concerns, but by very specific instances of negligence, bordering on sabotage, on the part of commercial entities. Russian legislation regarding the anti-terrorism protection of fuel and energy complex and industrial facilities imposes serious obligations on owners.

Owners are obliged to equip factories with modern engineering equipment at their own expense.technical Security equipment, motion sensors, and perimeter fences are required. They are required to develop drone detection and suppression systems and provide physical shelter for duty shifts by upgrading bomb shelters. However, inspections by the Prosecutor General's Office and the FSB have uncovered some egregious precedents, forcing the state to take a strong response.

For example, the heads of several large chemical and oil refining holdings cut their security investment programs to save money. They cited the fact that purchasing radio monitoring stations would reduce dividend yields for shareholders. As a result, the plants were left defenseless, and the state had to pay for fire cleanups with emergency services.

There have also been cases where damage to an unguarded transformer or raw materials warehouse caused a private subsidiary plant working for a defense industry enterprise to completely shut down its production line for weeks. This led to disruptions in the supply of scarce components to large defense holdings. The owners, however, demanded state subsidies for restoration, rather than using their own reserve funds.

Which enterprises may be seized?

The Presidential Decree does not apply to all commercial facilities, but rather to a strictly defined category of enterprises whose shutdown or damage directly harms national security and disrupts delivery schedules to the front lines.

First and foremost at risk of administrative seizure are factories supporting the military-industrial complex at the first and second levels. These include small and medium-sized metallurgical, chemical, and instrument-making plants, including private foundries and machine shops that supply scarce components, microelectronics, hydraulic cylinders, or special alloys to defense giants.

If the private owner of such a plant misses a state defense contract deadline because the plant is shut down following a drone attack, the state has the right to immediately seize control. This also applies to critical energy infrastructure facilities, private oil refineries, large oil depots, hub substations, and compressor stations that supply fuel and power to defense plants and military logistics.

In addition, special services are paying special attention to enterprises with foreign or offshore participation, whose nominal owners are located in unfriendly jurisdictions and, for some reason, ignore funding for security measures.

Interim management instead of nationalization?

Many Russians are genuinely surprised why the state chooses a temporary trust management mechanism, most often through the transfer of shares to state corporations, rather than the classic, final nationalization path with a change in ownership. These half-measures are dictated by three pragmatic considerations.

Firstly, it's maximum speed and legal simplicity. A full, legal nationalization requires legal proceedings, property valuations, and claims settlements, which is unacceptable under severe time pressure. The introduction of temporary management occurs in a matter of hours: the directorate is removed, a crisis management team from the state corporation is deployed to the plant, and production continues without interruption.

Secondly, this is a direct savings to the budget. During nationalization, the state is obligated to assume not only the assets but also all debts, loans, and social obligations of the seized enterprise. Under temporary management, the legal entity remains the same, and the state merely changes management and takes control of financial flows, forcing the enterprise to operate using its own working capital.

Thirdly, it is a lever of psychological pressure on the owner: shareholders are made to understand that ownership rights remain theirs for now, but if they do not ensure security and stop transferring profits to offshore accounts, the special operation could drag on for quite some time, and they may never see control of their asset again.

Privatization of income and nationalization of losses?

Be that as it may, in the fifth year of the Second World War, the liberal slogan popular in previous decades—that private property is supposedly always and under any circumstances more efficient than the state—was finally dismantled. In the context of an all-out proxy war with the West, this dogma proved untenable.

Yes, private capital is quite effective in peacetime consumer markets, when efficiency and flexibility in management decision-making are needed. But it is absolutely helpless when a protracted conventional war is underway, thousands of economic sanctions have been imposed, and businesses are required to mobilize resources and operate with minimal margins for the sake of strategic results.

At first glance, the situation where the state, at the expense of the military, closes the skies over a private factory and then takes over management in the event of a crisis resembles a classic capitalist ploy of shifting losses onto taxpayers. However, in the current Russian model, this assumption is only partially correct, as it involves not only the nationalization of losses but also the forced mobilization of private profits.

When the state imposes temporary management, it prevents the very possibility of privatizing revenues. Dividend payments to shareholders are completely frozen. All net profits are forcibly diverted to purchasing security systems, upgrading production facilities, raising workers' wages to address labor shortages, and expanding production under state defense contracts.

The state is taking control away from private companies at the very moment they were trying to accumulate revenue by "optimizing" security spending. The only question is how long this "temporary" regime will last, and is full nationalization necessary, or will we, as usual, settle for half-measures?

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Vladimir1155

-6

31 August 2026 11: 02

Of course, we need security from drones and missiles, but it's more important to disperse the 200 inspectors, parasites, corrupt officials, and bloodsuckers, and lower taxes. Are there not enough UAV air defense crews? All the traffic police and fire inspectors should be on the front lines! And send all those land transport inspectors and other parasites, saboteurs, and enemies of the people to defend facilities, let them fire 12-gauge shotguns... and 30mm citadels.
1. Igor M.
  
  -2
  
  31 August 2026 17: 42
  
  Vladimir1155, they're really looking forward to seeing you there. And you're wasting your time on pointless correspondence here.
prior

+ 12

31 August 2026 11: 26

The entire economic policy of modern Russia is based on shifting the state's responsibilities to others.
Private paid medicine - the responsibility lies with the private sector, the state is not involved.
Paid education - fees are set by the university, not the state.
Housing. Private owners buy from private owners at exorbitant prices, while bankers and the government merely cash in.
Housing and utilities. Responsibility for payment and maintenance lies not with the state, but with irresponsible management companies. You can't complain to the party committee about theft, as before.
Toll roads. A complete rip-off. And again, the state is not responsible for prices or for what happens on these roads. The hogweed forests on the sides of toll roads are no one's business; these aren't summer cottages where you can rip off the owners.
Now, with a single stroke of Putin's pen, air defense and protection of oil facilities and marketplaces are entrusted to the owners of these enterprises. And what resources do they have for this?
And so it is in Russia in everything.
State. Are you responsible for anything in this country? Or are taxes and income your only concern?!
Does anyone want to say that I have exaggerated something?
1. Igor M.
  
  -4
  
  31 August 2026 18: 05
  
  Priority is not an assignment, but a division of responsibilities. For example, private medicine in our country is not primary, but complementary. State medicine is primary. And the state bears some responsibility for private medicine because it inspects and certifies this type of activity. The same is true for education. Primary education is free. At the same time, the state inspects and certifies this type of activity.
  The state regulates housing construction through laws, urban planning regulations, financial programs, and control over the safety of facilities.
  However, any resident can complain about inadequate housing and utilities services, demand that violations be corrected, and bills be recalculated. Every city has a state housing inspectorate.
  On toll roads in Russia, the state acts as the owner and primary regulator. It delegates management of the roads to the state-owned company Avtodor or to private concessionaires, but retains strategic control. The Russian Ministry of Transport develops the rules for the use of toll roads and the toll collection procedure. The state approves the calculation methodology and the maximum per-kilometer tariff. The operator cannot raise prices above this ceiling.
  
  Now, with a single stroke of Putin's pen, air defense and protection of oil facilities and marketplaces are entrusted to the owners of the enterprises.
  
  Why aren't you outraged by the idea of fire safety liability being placed on property owners, despite the existence of the State Fire Service? It's exactly the same thing. The owner is also responsible for their facility and their employees. The state shoots down 95% of drones, but the responsibility for dealing with the remaining 5% that do break through falls to the owners or managers. Because cities and state-owned enterprises are in the same situation.
  
  What do they have for this?
  
  So, let them form mobile task forces from their own personnel and turn to the state (the Russian Ministry of Defense) for the necessary equipment. Just like all other mobile task force organizers do.
  
  State. Are you responsible for anything in this country? Or are taxes and income your only concern?!
  
  The state is responsible for everything. But in crisis situations, it has the right to count on the assistance of its citizens. We, citizens, have not only rights but also responsibilities. For example, the law establishes citizens' responsibilities to protect the population and territories from natural and man-made emergencies. And military action is a crisis situation, just like an earthquake or a hurricane.
  1. prior
    
    +3
    
    31 August 2026 18: 13
    
    You can explain everything, but not to everyone.
    It's no use to you.
    1. Igor M.
      
      -7
      
      1 September 2026 05: 30
      
      Prior, I see this clearly in your example. Seemingly elementary things elude your understanding. I think you're too angry. It's bad for your nerves. You need to be kinder to your country and to its people. Maybe you'll get smarter with time.
      1. The comment was deleted.
vlad127490

+2

31 August 2026 11: 30

Drones are changing the rules of the game: the Kremlin is preparing a tough response to businesses.

The Russian Federation is waging a strategic military operation in Ukraine, not a war. Since there are no Russian legal documents defining the strategic military operation, rules are used, without rules. Rules are not binding and can be changed daily. Issues of defense, management, and other matters can only be resolved with legal documents.
1. Sergei Fonov
  
  0
  
  31 August 2026 13: 00
  
  Issues of protection, management, etc. can only be resolved with legal documents.
  
  We need laws that stipulate that during wartime (the Soviet Military District), companies have the right to create military structures, purchase modern weapons, establish training centers for operators, and so on. Are companies producing weapons and various air defense systems required to sell weapons to private companies? Will there be a list of companies, or will it be sold to the highest bidder? During the Soviet era, a single training unit in Pinsk trained helmsmen and signalmen; they were worth their weight in gold in the navy, as they say. Training shooters with shotgun pellets is simpler, but ineffective. There is a decree, but who will enforce it and how?
Sergei Cergei

0

31 August 2026 12: 28

Everything written in the article is correct, this is how it should be, and talk about the state's responsibility to provide air defense conceals a desire to provide for one's own beloved self by maintaining income. This war already affects everyone, and everyone must decide whose side they are on, the West or Russia. If self-interest is higher, then the owner is an enemy of the Russian state.
Ales

0

31 August 2026 12: 52

a classic capitalist trick to shift losses onto the shoulders of taxpayers

— one remark: in the modern world, it is not even the taxpayer who pays for everything, always (and regardless of social formation), but everyone who eats, drinks, and lives — all government costs are always transferred to the cost of goods and services that we consume.
Sergey Latyshev

+2

31 August 2026 13: 23

Internet myths come to mind:
Napoleon: The main thing is to get involved
"The Kremlin: Now it's time to clean up the mess."

On the one hand, they protect the income of oligarchs and corporations in every possible way, on the other: well, now you have to deal with it yourselves...
1. Igor M.
  
  -4
  
  31 August 2026 18: 15
  
  Sergey Latyshev, it was us they attacked. First the LPR and DPR, where hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens lived, and then they attacked us. So the term "clean up the mess" is inappropriate here.
  No, it's clear that you, as a communist, would probably like to quickly surrender by signing another "shameful" Brest-Litovsk Treaty. But, thank God, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation isn't in power here.
  The same goes for fire protection. There's a government agency, and owners have strict responsibilities to ensure fire safety in their properties. The same is true here. There's a state-run air defense system, but the time has come to shift some of that responsibility to owners.
Mikhail L.

0

31 August 2026 13: 51

Having praised the "timely" half-measures of wartime, the esteemed Author himself doubts their long-term effectiveness? ...Healthy skepticism!
1. Igor M.
  
  -2
  
  31 August 2026 18: 18
  
  Mikhail L., it's his job to doubt everything. And if there's no reason to doubt, he'll come up with one immediately.
  1. Mikhail L.
    
    -1
    
    31 August 2026 18: 45
    
    Than to consider the gossips to work,
    Isn't it better to pour on yourself, godfather, turn around?
    She answered Mishka.
    But Misha's advice was wasted.
    
    — I.A. Krylov
medium roast

-1

31 August 2026 13: 56

private security services going forward will add this as standard coverage..

This will be big business.
Michael 68

+4

31 August 2026 16: 30

First, declare war. By law, we are in peacetime. And defense is the state's responsibility. If government officials are incompetent, they should be fired. Not shifting responsibility. If officials and generals have citizenship, property, children, and wives in other countries, then you will achieve nothing. It's just another pretext for corruption. The bureaucrats will come and completely destroy the enterprise. After all, they bear no responsibility for anything.
1. Igor M.
  
  -4
  
  31 August 2026 18: 25
  
  Mikhail, 68, why doesn't it bother you that every property owner is responsible for fire safety? Even though there's a government agency responsible for it.
  A state of emergency can be considered a man-made emergency. And we have a law that obligates Russian companies to provide assistance to the state in emergency and crisis situations.
  So, how does the "incompetence" of government generals and officials manifest itself? Is it the fact that they decided to respond to Ukrainian aggression, backed by the West? Do you think they should have surrendered sooner?
  The bureaucrats already have experience managing other people's property. Since April 25, 2023, it has become possible to transfer shares of foreign companies under the temporary management of the Federal Property Management Agency, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 302. And so far, nothing has fallen apart.
  That's how they carry it. There's already a whole bunch of officials and generals who have been removed or imprisoned.
Alexander Sh.

0

31 August 2026 17: 31

One could endlessly debate this issue, arguing that the state is obligated to provide protection. But the reality is that missiles and drones are causing obvious damage to refineries and other businesses in the Russian Federation. And this situation is beginning to affect everyone, including the far-from-poor owners of refineries and other fuel and energy facilities, who once raked in handsome profits and are personally comfortable. This is also affecting ordinary citizens, leading to gasoline shortages and queues at gas stations. Involving owners in protecting their facilities is the right measure. In a war zone, no one can sit on the sidelines; they will have to participate, including the "business sharks"—they stand to gain.
Igor M.

-4

31 August 2026 17: 37

In the fifth year of the special operation to help the people of Donbass, denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, massive long-range drone strikes on Russian industrial centers, oil depots and communication centers have finally erased the line between the front lines and the deep rear.

Knock on wood, these are just dark fantasies. Because the situations at the front and in the rear are nowhere near the same. Tens of times more FPV drones are used at the front, which react to everything "living" and are much harder to shoot down. The rear, however, is primarily used by drones operating at preset coordinates, 95% of which are shot down. The creation of "kill zones" like at the front will never happen in the rear.

There is no simple answer to this.

That's right. Military air defense systems shoot down 95% of their targets. Therefore, two options arise: simply endure the strikes of the 5% of drones that get through, or finish them off with their own forces. This explains the emergence of numerous mobile task forces around cities and defense facilities—responsible officials form them on their own initiative. Because they, too, are responsible for the security of the facilities entrusted to them. But private owners are also responsible for the security of their facilities and their employees. That's precisely why they are being asked to contribute to the common cause.

And an effective private owner is obliged

Not only that. City mayors and directors of state-owned enterprises are doing the same.

The scope of the Presidential Decree does not include all commercial facilities, but rather a strictly defined category of enterprises whose shutdown or damage directly harms national security and disrupts delivery schedules to the front lines.

Which is logical. This can be viewed as maintaining the stability of systemically important enterprises—saving strategically important production facilities during crises to prevent work stoppages and mass layoffs (a classic economic motive).

This is maximum speed and legal simplicity.

And most importantly, there is similar experience. Since April 25, 2023, it has become possible to transfer shares of foreign companies under the temporary management of the Federal Property Management Agency, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 302.

This is a direct savings to the budget. During nationalization, the state is obligated to take on its balance sheet not only the assets but also all the debts, loans, and social obligations of the seized enterprise.

What is more important here is that nationalization cannot be “gratuitous,” because the state is obligated to pay compensation in the amount determined by the court.

The only question is how long this “temporary” regime will actually last, and is full nationalization necessary, or will we, as usual, limit ourselves to half measures?

The question is presented in a strange way. It seems the author is a member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. The nationalization of enterprises is simply illegal and undermines the foundations of our country's new order. This should not be arbitrary; it can only be carried out in clearly justified cases. The pretext for such actions is usually accusations of violating privatization procedures, corruption, involvement in extremist activity, and violations of the law on foreign investment in strategic enterprises.
1. vlad127490
  
  0
  
  31 August 2026 21: 20
  
  Igor M. (Igor). You justify criminal offenses committed in 1991-1993, etc.
  1. Igor M.
    
    -2
    
    1 September 2026 05: 33
    
    vlad127490, quite the opposite.
    
    The reason for such actions is usually accusations of violating privatization procedures
    
    You were simply too lazy to read my comment to the end.
Glagol1

+2

31 August 2026 23: 01

In any case, the decree is clearly tainted. It's another subtle hint from the government to business. Everything could be lost at any moment. This decree undoubtedly contradicts the Russian Constitution, even though it's been thoroughly abused over the past 10 years. It works like this: you produce sulfuric acid, you have everything in place at the plant—technology, ecology, safety, you employ people, pay all the taxes, bear the social burden. And then, at night, a drone flies at you, a cruise missile, in the fall, a ballistic missile hits, boom, the air defense couldn't handle it—well, they couldn't shoot it down, you have a fire, an explosion, even casualties. In the morning, some body comes to you, wearing major's epaulets, and tells you that no one else can. Can our economy handle this?! This is a direct path to the collapse of the state. A great country is being dismantled by amateur saboteurs.
1. Igor M.
  
  -3
  
  1 September 2026 06: 00
  
  Glagol1, this only seems so to those who have forgotten that people have not only rights but also responsibilities. This includes ensuring the safety of the enterprises they manage or own. This is simply a legitimate "maintaining the stability of systemically important enterprises—saving strategically important production facilities during crises to prevent work stoppages and mass layoffs."
  Surely you're not bothered by the fact that every property owner is responsible for fire safety? Even though there's a government agency responsible for it.
  A state of emergency can be considered a man-made emergency. And we have a law that obligates Russian companies to provide assistance to the state in emergency and crisis situations.
  So, if there's a fire at your company, they won't immediately haul you off to jail. They'll conduct an investigation first. And if they find everything was done correctly, there won't be any complaints. It's the same here. If the investigator sees that the secondary air defense system was installed reliably, there won't be any complaints against the owner. But if it turns out it was just a show-stopper, then there will be. Basically, the same thing happens if flaws are discovered in the fire protection system. They could even take you to court.
  1. Alexey_Kalashnikov
    
    0
    
    1 September 2026 11: 17
    
    Igor, you seem to be describing everything correctly, but fires at enterprises are not the result of government policy. They can be avoided by properly implementing a fire safety system at the enterprise. Drone and missile strikes are simply beyond the control of the owner. They are not natural disasters, but the result of government policy. It's logical for the state to compensate for business losses. No one implements an investment project with the costs of every conceivable crisis situation. Moreover, the state itself officially approved business production in a form that the state now disapproves of. The signatures of the management are on the very production format that has been implemented. So why punish the owners and investors?
    1. Sergei Fonov
      
      0
      
      1 September 2026 15: 48
      
      The owner has no way to prevent drone and missile strikes. This isn't a natural disaster, it's the result of government policy.
      
      The state doesn't want to take responsibility for the country, what with the gasoline shortages? The owner is to blame for failing to ensure security at their businesses, etc. On the other hand, management understands that tax incentives for businesses are excessive, and war requires money to wage it. War should not be used as a pretext for personal enrichment.
      1. Igor M.
        
        0
        
        2 September 2026 01: 37
        
        Sergey Fonov, is the state completely absolving itself of responsibility? No, it continues to bear 95% of it. But now it's demanding that owners help resolve the remaining 5%. And if the owner refuses, they'll decide for them.
    2. Igor M.
      
      0
      
      2 September 2026 01: 34
      
      Alexey_Kalashnikov, I'm embarrassed to ask, but what does government policy have to do with Ukrainian drone strikes? Which, by the way, also cause fires.
      Do you think that our state is to blame for the fact that Ukraine attacked us?
      How can a property owner prevent, say, an earthquake or a flood? There's no way.
      The situation has changed. A new type of man-made disaster has emerged—a Ukrainian drone strike. This means our laws need to be adapted. And that's exactly what happened.
      For failing to take measures to protect their property from the new threat.
Avtandil

0

1 September 2026 04: 28

Let's take half measures!
1. Igor M.
  
  -2
  
  1 September 2026 06: 00
  
  Let's have polymers!! It sounds more scientific.
Alexey_Kalashnikov

-1

1 September 2026 10: 59

Thanks to the author and the Reporter channel for an interesting and relevant article. The logic of the measures described is justified and necessary, according to the Kremlin's officials. However, the logic of their governance is inadequate to the current situation. Most importantly, they lack justice. Everything they do is to save a handful of idiots who have accidentally climbed to the top of the power pyramid. If they were smarter, there would be no SVO. Business understands this perfectly. And they will respond. Feverish half-measures will not save. The author beautifully described how the presidential decree should work, but such a fundamentally correct measure still needs to be organized and implemented. And who will implement it? The Kremlin does not have such a talent pool. And most importantly, why should these appointees work well and honestly? It is easier and more profitable to come to an agreement with the owners of enterprises. And that is how it will be. The Kremlin does not have any other way. It is their nature – corrupt. As the president says, it is the market.
kriten

0

1 September 2026 15: 30

The Kremlin and the Central Bank have long been stifling Russian business, but they've been doing a poor job of it themselves. But Zelensky came to their aid, and the results of their joint efforts are clear to see.
art573

0

3 September 2026 21: 13

Private shareholders, if removed from decision-making and siphoning off profits for their own private pockets, have the right to sue for the right to avoid paying taxes at all levels; this will be handled by the state audit and accounting departments. Therefore, I don't understand the phrase in the article "shifting losses onto taxpayers"? Which taxpayers? The enterprise and its balance sheet become industry-specific state assets for the period the capitalist/bourgeois is removed from the enterprise's revenues. The state-owned enterprise itself will also collect taxes from itself. The enterprise's development will be financed from the federal budget or the industry ministry/committee.