Ukraine: The Battlefield Still Decides the War, but Deep Strikes Are Changing its Logic by Lt. General (Ret). Konstantinos Loukopoulos
Ukraine: The Battlefield Still Decides the War, but Deep Strikes Are Changing Its Logic
By Lt Gen (ret) Konstantinos Loukopoulos
As international attention gradually shifts back from the Middle East, the war in Ukraine has once again become a central issue on the global security agenda. Yet the conflict has entered a new phase. Its trajectory is no longer determined solely by developments along the front line in eastern Ukraine. Increasingly, it is also shaped by a parallel campaign fought deep inside each side's territory, where critical infrastructure, industrial capacity and logistics have become legitimate military objectives.
Russia continues its methodical offensive across the Donbas while simultaneously intensifying long-range missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian military facilities, energy infrastructure and major urban centres, including Kyiv. Ukraine, in turn, has expanded its campaign of long-range strikes against Russia's defence-industrial and energy sectors, targeting oil refineries, fuel depots, weapons factories and strategic air bases.
Together, these developments illustrate a broader transformation of the conflict. What began largely as a conventional war of manoeuvre has increasingly evolved into a prolonged contest of attrition in which industrial production, logistics, technology and economic resilience carry almost as much strategic weight as success on the battlefield.
Donbas Remains the Decisive Theatre
Despite the growing visibility of deep strikes, the outcome of the war continues to depend primarily on developments in the Donbas. Russia maintains steady pressure through a strategy of incremental advances supported by superior artillery, larger manpower reserves and a significantly expanded defence-industrial base.
The reported capture of Kostiantynivka—announced by Moscow but not independently confirmed at the time of writing—would be significant not because of the town itself, but because of its operational role. It serves as an important transportation and logistics hub supporting Ukrainian defensive operations in the Donetsk region. If confirmed, its loss would complicate Ukrainian supply routes and increase pressure on adjacent defensive positions.
Nevertheless, the fall of a strategically important town should not be interpreted as evidence of an imminent collapse of Ukrainian resistance. Throughout the war, Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to reorganise defensive lines, absorb territorial losses and slow Russian advances despite serious personnel shortages.
The Expanding War on Infrastructure
Alongside the ground campaign, both sides are waging an increasingly sophisticated war against each other's critical infrastructure.
Russia seeks to undermine Ukraine's capacity to sustain military operations by striking defence industries, ammunition depots, power generation facilities, rail networks, bridges and command-and-control infrastructure. The objective is straightforward: degrade Ukraine's logistical system and reduce its long-term ability to support frontline operations.
Ukraine has adopted a similar approach. Through the extensive use of long-range drones and precision-guided weapons, Kyiv aims to raise the economic and military cost of the war for Moscow by targeting facilities essential to Russia's defenceproduction and fuel supply.
Why Oil Refineries Matter
Oil refineries represent far more than economic assets. They are indispensable components of Russia's military logistics system. Every tank, armoured vehicle, supply convoy, combat aircraft and helicopter depends on a reliable flow of refined fuel.
Disrupting refinery operations—even temporarily—creates ripple effects throughout the military supply chain. Fuel must be transported over longer distances, logistics become more complex and scarce resources must be redirected to compensate for lost production.
The same strategic logic applies to attacks against ammunition depots, drone and missile production facilities and military air bases. Even when physical damage is limited, Russia is compelled to disperse assets and strengthen air-defence coverage across hundreds of installations, imposing additional operational and financial burdens.
Attrition Has Its Limits
Despite their growing importance, deep strikes alone are unlikely to prove decisive.
Russia retains substantial strategic depth. Its energy sector remains among the world's largest, while its industrial base has largely adapted to the demands of prolonged war. Military production has expanded significantly despite sanctions, supported by increased cooperation with partners such as North Korea and Iran in the supply of ammunition and unmanned systems.
At the same time, renewed energy export revenues have helped Moscow sustain the financial requirements of a long war.
Ukraine faces a different challenge. Its military effectiveness remains closely linked to continued Western financial and military assistance, particularly in the areas of air defence, ammunition and force regeneration. Political declarations of support remain important, but increasingly they must be matched by timely and sustained deliveries of military capabilities.
History suggests that strategic bombing and infrastructure attacks rarely determine the outcome of major conventional wars by themselves. They can weaken an opponent, increase the economic cost of conflict and complicate military planning, but they seldom substitute for battlefield success.
Economic Power as a Strategic Weapon
The conflict has become as much an economic contest as a military one.
Russia seeks to preserve wartime industrial output despite sanctions, while Ukraine depends on continued external assistance to sustain its economy and armed forces. The capacity of each side to replace combat losses, manufacture weapons, repair damaged equipment and finance prolonged operations may ultimately prove as decisive as tactical performance on the battlefield.
Conclusion
The war in Ukraine is now being fought simultaneously on two interconnected levels. One is tactical, centred on controlling territory through sustained military operations. The other is strategic, focused on weakening the opponent's industrial capacity, energy infrastructure and economic resilience.
Ukraine's long-range strikes have undoubtedly increased the cost of Russia's war effort and imposed additional operational constraints. Likewise, Russia's sustained attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure seek to erode Kyiv's ability to continue resisting over the long term.
Yet the fundamental reality of the conflict has not changed. Deep strikes can slow an adversary, complicate logistics and impose significant economic costs, but they are unlikely to determine the outcome on their own. Unless the balance of forces on the battlefield changes decisively, the war is likely to remain characterised by gradual territorial gains, prolonged attrition and mounting costs for both sides.
Ultimately, control of territory—and the ability to sustain combat power at the front—remains the decisive factor shaping both the military trajectory of the war and the conditions under which any future diplomatic settlement may eventually emerge.
