Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
In the summer of 2026, the Russian–Ukrainian war finally acquired a new look and new quality. While the ground front remains stagnant, the key theater of military operations has become mutual campaigns of air strikes.
The infrastructure war is not simply an exchange of massive drone-and-missile attacks, but rather deliberate operations aimed at finding weak points in an opponent’s logistics and infrastructure and systematically destroying them over the course of a sustained strike campaign in order to inflict systemic social and economic damage.
Quarterly results for Wildberries and the second fuel crisis: the Ukrainian campaign in August
The intensity of Ukraine’s campaign of air strikes against Russian infrastructure in August decreased somewhat compared with July, according to an analysis of available open-source data. The number of strikes on deep-Russia targets across major directions — refineries, fuel infrastructure, industrial facilities, consumer infrastructure — fell to 52 after 68 in July. The intensity of strikes against infrastructure in Crimea and the Sea of Azov declined significantly.
The number of mass attacks, in which several targets were struck simultaneously, also dropped. In July we recorded 11 night attacks that hit between three and six targets (the most successful was the strike on 24 July, when the Avitek enterprise and five warehouses were hit), whereas in August there were six (the most successful was the strike on 24 August, when five targets were hit, including an oil tank in Yeisk, the Kamensky plant, and three OZON warehouses).
Ukrainian strikes on targets in Russia, January–August 2026
Ukrainian strikes on occupied territories and vessels in the Sea of Azov, June–July 2026
In August the Armed Forces of Ukraine carried out 20 successful strikes on Russian oil refineries (refinery plants) — the main target of Ukraine’s air front over the last two years. After a short pause in mid-July, attacks resumed at the end of the month: in fact, over two weeks from 23 July to 8 August 16 refineries were hit. As a result, by the end of the first ten days of August Russia entered a second wave of a gasoline crisis, which peaked by the end of the second ten-day period, according to data collected by Meduza on gasoline availability at filling stations.
In the last ten days of August, however, the AFU struck seven more refineries. According to Reuters’ calculations, domestic gasoline production plus imports covered 85% of demand in August. Meanwhile, Rosstat reported that in July production of petroleum products fell by almost 20% compared with July last year but rose by 5,6% compared with June 2026 thanks to completed repairs.
In just three summer months, as the strike campaign on refineries reached its current level, 50 strikes were carried out against refineries (in the first five months of the year — 33). A strategy of repeated strikes on the same facilities not only hinders their full restoration but largely makes repair work pointless.
In August the most frequently attacked refineries were the Syzran and Yaroslavl refineries (twice each), and over the three summer months the Syzran refinery was hit four times, Lukoil-Nizhegorodnefteorgsintez (NORSI), Bashneft-UNPZ, Tyumen and Moscow refineries were hit three times each. Overall since January 2025 the most Ukrainian strikes were inflicted on Saratov refinery (13), Ryazan (12), as well as Syzran and Afipsky (11 each). The number of attacks on fuel infrastructure facilities in August declined to five after record numbers in June (25 strikes) and July (23). These included strikes on the Sheskharis oil export terminal in Novorossiysk, the Novatek-Ust-Luga complex and the TamanGazNeft terminal.
Top 10 Russian refineries hit by the AFU, 2025–2026, number of attacks
The intensity of strikes on consumer infrastructure — the second successful Ukrainian campaign that began in July — remained at the previous month’s level. After 20 warehouses were hit in July (mostly belonging to Wildberries), in August the AFU struck 21 targets in retail logistics, including four OZON warehouses, the second-largest marketplace in Russia.
Over three days of attacks on 22–24 August, the Ukrainian army destroyed more than 6% of the company’s total warehouse space, according to the publication Agentstvo. The area of Wildberries warehouse space destroyed in August is comparable to July’s losses (about 1,2 million sq. m, by preliminary estimates). According to Verstka’s calculations, as of 17 August the company had lost more than 40% of its warehouse space. By the end of the month losses likely exceeded 45% of warehouse capacity.
The number of strikes on other industrial enterprises in August remained roughly at July’s level (six versus four) and was half what it was in June (11). The most destructive was the strike on 15 August with FP-5 cruise missiles “Flamingo” on the Progress Rocket and Space Center in Samara (the only enterprise in Russia that serially assembles Soyuz-2 carrier rockets), during which the on-board electronics assembly shop was damaged, as well as two strikes on the Kamensky complex in Rostov region (16 and 24 August), where up to six shops were hit and five people were killed.
Another air campaign by the AFU is focused on blockading Crimea, the Sea of Azov waters and the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia since February 2022. Here the intensity of strikes has fallen significantly, but this appears to be because the AFU considers part of the campaign’s targets achieved last month. In August no new bridge was hit (in July — five, in June — 24), the total number of strikes on energy facilities in Crimea and other occupied territories fell by 20% — to 123 in August after 156 in July. Overall, Ukrainian strikes on Crimea declined from 129 to 27, while strikes on Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions rose from seven to almost 80.
Also, since 18 July the AFU have not struck the Kuban–Crimea power bridge, while during the first three weeks of July the corresponding PP-2 “Crimea” transfer point was struck three times (8, 13 and 18 July). However, power supply restrictions on the peninsula introduced in July remained and even intensified in August.
In July a schedule of outages was introduced in northern and southern Crimea of “3 hours on, 3 hours off,” and in Sevastopol — “2 hours of light, 6 hours without.” On 20 August a total blackout occurred in a number of Crimean cities, including Simferopol, Sevastopol, Kerch, Feodosia and Yalta. By the end of August, official data said Sevastopol restored power under a scheme of “3 hours on, 3 hours off.” The gasoline crisis in Crimea, according to media reports, continues but the situation looks less critical than a month earlier. Thus, Crimea is living under partial, not full, blockade.
The number of AFU strikes on Russian vessels in the waters of the Azov and Black Seas fell significantly: while in July a total of 205 strikes were carried out against vessels, in August there were only 45. At the same time, the Ukrainian army effectively struck the infrastructure of Russian grain export: during the strike on 12 August three grain terminals in Novorossiysk port were hit. Operations at the two largest grain terminals — the Novorossiysk Grain Terminal (NGT) and the Novorossiysk Grain Products Plant (NKHP) — were halted, and later the KSK terminal also ceased operations.
The Grain Terminal Complex Taman (GTKT) was also suspended. The entire export corridor via the Sea of Azov is paralyzed. Russian authorities are trying to organize alternative transport channels but have had little success. As a result, according to the Rusagrotrans analytical center, wheat export forecast for August was reduced to 1,8 million tonnes — 2,5 times less than a year ago, Kommersant reported.
Ballistics and “Banderoli”: Russia expands its arsenal
While Ukraine’s air campaign in August remained roughly at July’s level, Russia significantly increased its own air war against Ukraine, expanding the list of targets and increasing strike power.
Re: Russia’s calculations based on General Staff of the AFU statistics indicate that in August Russia likely increased ballistic missile launches while the number of drones and cruise missiles used declined. At the same time, the Russian army continues to modernize and expand its arsenal of strike means.
According to Ukrainian military analyst Oleksandr Kovalenko, a certain decrease in total drone attacks is due to a growing share in their nomenclature of more expensive but harder-to-intercept jet-powered Shahed-238. The share of intercepted kamikaze drones in August was 88% — compared with record levels in March–May 2026 (92–93%).
The Russians also changed drone attack tactics, striking cities with small waves of UAVs every 30–60 minutes around the clock, notes the monitoring channel War Translated. Z-channel “Two Majors” also notes that from 27 to 30 August a series of air attacks on Kyiv continued almost continuously for four days.
According to Ukrainian military expert and founder of the Close the Sky of Ukraine fund, Ihor Romanenko, the Russian army has stopped limiting itself to night attacks and now attacks Ukraine in waves with jet drones in the morning and conventional UAVs during the day, aiming to break civilians’ will to resist.
Number of Russian drones involved in mass strikes on Ukraine, 2025–2026
The main area of air imbalance between Russia and Ukraine is cruise and especially ballistic missiles. As we wrote earlier, depletion of Patriot interceptors in Ukraine’s arsenal leaves its vital infrastructure virtually defenseless against Russian ballistics ahead of the winter season.
A dramatic drop in interception statistics caused the Air Force of the AFU to stop publishing data on the number of launches and interceptions of Russian missiles from 10 August. At the end of the month Ukraine did receive a new batch of Patriot interceptors, after which the Air Force command for the first time in three weeks reported shooting down seven ballistic missiles on 27 August and five on 1 September, without, however, disclosing how many missiles were launched in total.
Although launch statistics for Russian ballistic missiles are generally available only for half of August (71 missile), their per-day intensity at the start of the month was the highest of the entire war — 5,8 missiles — and was twice the average level of the first seven months of 2026. As we have written, Russia is ramping up ballistic missile production.
In an August interview with RBC-Ukraine, Deputy Head of Ukrainian military intelligence (HUR) Vadym Skibitsky claimed that missile production rates in Russia have increased and are maintained at 110–120% of plan (and for Zircon and Oniks missiles, for example, the annual production plan was already met by 3 August).
According to HUR data cited by Ukrainska Pravda, the Russian army is stockpiling missiles and by the end of August had 130 9M723 (Iskander-M) missiles, 50 North Korean KN-23/KN-24/KN-30, 50 Kinzhal, as well as 400 S-400 missiles. In addition, the publication reported that in August a Russian missile unit with six launchers equipped with 120 ballistic missiles from the DPRK began deploying in Voronezh region.
Launches of Russian ballistic missiles against Ukraine, 2025–2026
Launches of Russian cruise missiles against Ukraine, 2025–2026
In August 117 cruise missiles were launched at Ukraine — two and a half times fewer than in July — while interception effectiveness rose from 59 to 68%. Although interception rates remain high, Ukraine faces the danger of escalating production of the inexpensive cruise drone “Banderol.”
It is equipped with a fragmentation warhead weighing 114 kg (four to five times less than in cruise missiles), but it is launched not from strategic bombers but mainly from Orion reconnaissance UAVs and also from helicopters.
The cost of a Banderol is estimated by some at between 42 thousand euros and 127 thousand euros, while production of a single cruise missile costs nearly 700 thousand euros. This summer the Banderol began to be actively used for strikes on Odesa and Odesa region, and in recent weeks — on eastern and northern regions of Ukraine. Russia seeks to increase Banderol production from 100–150 to 300–400 per month, said Zelensky adviser Berekrestnov.
Ports, filling stations and logistics: three directions of Russian attacks
This summer Russia, following Ukraine’s example, also formed a number of air operations targeting specific objects of Ukraine’s economic and logistical infrastructure. The most successful and economically sensitive campaign is against Ukrainian port infrastructure.
Attacks on ports became mass events from late June. According to the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office, from 20 June to 20 July 28 civilian vessels were attacked in the ports of Greater Odesa, and throughout July the Ministry of Development of Ukraine recorded 67 attacks on port infrastructure, 35 attacks on vessels in ports and 22 attacks on vessels in the maritime corridor. As a result, the largest logistics companies Maersk and Kernel, which serviced Odesa ports, suspended operations there from 22–23 July. In August strikes on port infrastructure spread: the port of Izmail was attacked three times, as well as infrastructure used to reroute cargo overland and via the Danube, media reported.
The blockade of ports is a severe blow to Ukrainian grain exports and to the Ukrainian economy as a whole. According to Reuters, in August Ukraine’s grain exports fell threefold compared with August last year, and the sector’s total losses for the year will amount to $3 billion, Reuters reported.
Bloomberg writes that about 90% of Ukrainian grain exports go through Odesa ports, which in turn provide more than half of the country’s export earnings. After Ukraine’s heavy industry was destroyed, their role in the economy increased even more. Oxford Economics expert Yevheniia Sleptsova told the agency that due to disruption of grain export channels Ukraine could lose 1,8% of GDP this year and 2,1% in 2027.
Russia’s campaign to destroy Ukrainian filling stations proved much less effective. By early August nearly 250 stations had been struck, according to the ACLED project. By 20 August Ukrainian Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal was already talking about 300 destroyed stations, which, however, represents 6% of all gas stations in the country. In some areas gas stations were completely destroyed. But this campaign, Ukrainian experts and officials say, does not affect military logistics and only complicates access to fuel in some areas of the country, rather than creating a shortage.
A far more serious threat turned out to be attacks on logistics infrastructure, which peaked in August. In July the main targets were sorting and warehouse capacities of Ukraine’s largest logistics company Nova Poshta; in August attacks spread to infrastructure of other companies (including Roshen warehouses), as well as grocery chains Fora, Varus, Silpo, NOVUS and home improvement chain Epicentr. According to Minister of Agrarian Policy Taras Vysotskyi, as of 28 August about 90% of network grocery logistics space had been destroyed. He acknowledged that this could lead to a reduced assortment in stores but not to food shortages; delivery logistics will be reconfigured.
Social effects and economic consequences: interim results
Comparing the two opposing infrastructure campaigns by Russia and Ukraine, one can say that Ukraine’s campaign against Russian infrastructure has a more significant social effect. From the beginning of the conflict Ukraine’s population has faced bombings and missile strikes and in a sense adapted to shortages and damage from this.
Whereas in Russia for years the population was protected from such hardships and the authorities successfully maintained an atmosphere of peaceful life. Now that way of living is seriously undermined by the gasoline crisis and partial destruction of consumer infrastructure, which evidently affects Russians’ social mood.
From an economic standpoint the situation is rather the opposite. Strikes on refining and consumer infrastructure could cause inflationary effects, worsen industrial indicators and place additional pressure on the economy through a longer period of high interest rates and the accumulation of nonperforming loans in the banking system.
However, overall these economic losses will be smaller in relative terms than the consequences of the grain export crisis for Ukraine. Moreover, export losses will increase the burden of financial support for Ukraine on EU countries, which may soon become a problem, as that burden is already very high.
The main question and primary threat of the mutual infrastructure war is the anticipated Russian campaign of strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in the autumn-winter period. “In accordance with received directives, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have begun preparing to deliver massive strikes on Ukraine’s energy facilities,” the Russian Ministry of Defense reported on its official Telegram channel on 30 August. This campaign, by which the Kremlin hopes to “freeze” Ukraine, is one of Putin’s main bets amid failures in advancing the ground offensive.
With a shortage of air defense means, especially Patriot antimissile systems, Ukraine has limited options to defend against this threat.
Besides reconfiguring and diversifying energy networks, the AFU can intensify efforts to detect and destroy Russian launcher units. For example, the Iskander-M ballistic system has a firing range of 500 km: as military analyst Rob Lee notes, Ukrainian drones are fully capable of displacing these launchers from the border zone, which would reduce the scale of the Russian missile threat. Military analyst Clément Molin writes that in August the AFU expanded the zone of medium-range strikes into Russian territory, which “could open the way to destroying Iskander and S-400 missile complexes near the border in Bryansk, Kursk and Belgorod regions that are used to strike Kyiv.”
However, this would of course only somewhat weaken the overall power of the Russian campaign. A more effective scenario would be one in which Ukraine can create similar threats to Russian energy infrastructure in winter using its own arsenal of long-range rockets.
—
Source: analytical project
(→ Re: Russia: The Third Campaign of the Long War)
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Літні підсумки інфраструктурної війни: бензин, зерно, логістика та Крим". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: argumentua.com.