After more than four years of war, ordinary Russian citizens are increasingly experiencing the consequences of the Ukraine war firsthand.
Ukrainian long-range drone attacks are now targeting Russian industrial facilities, energy infrastructure, and areas near major population centers—bringing the war to Russian territory in a relatively new way.
Tu-160 Bomber Russian Air Force. Image Credit: Russian State Media.
Russia Tu-160 Bomber. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Meanwhile, fuel shortages, economic pressures, and occasional attacks in Moscow have disrupted everyday life for citizens of the capital.
Yet public anger has not translated into a widespread antiwar movement as you might expect.
In an October 23 New York Times article, correspondent Valerie Hopkins examined how Russians are responding to the war’s growing domestic consequences.
Hopkins’s reporting revealed a notable pattern: even as conditions decline, many Russians insist life remains normal.
Everything is Fine
Hopkins traveled to Sofino outside Moscow, where Ukrainian drone strikes had recently hit an industrial area and a residential complex, reportedly killing two people and causing significant damage.
She described a country where the war has become increasingly visible.
Hopkins observed motorists waiting in long lines at a gas station with no diesel fuel, where gasoline cost approximately $3.25 per gallon.
When speaking to citizens on the ground, Hopkins was told things like “everything is fine” and the war “doesn’t affect my life at all.”
Keeping the Faith
Several factors may explain why worsening conditions did not translate into organized political opposition to the war.
For starters, political repression: Russia’s restrictions on antiwar speech, independent journalism, and public demonstrations make dissent very costly.
Meanwhile, Russians have experienced repeated periods of economic and political instability, potentially making the gradual deterioration experienced during the Ukraine war easier to normalize.
Some citizens are likely adept at compartmentalization, deliberately or subconsciously separating everyday concerns from the larger conflict.
Nationalism and propaganda are also factors; state-controlled media can reinforce the government’s interpretation of the war and its consequences, placing the blame squarely on Ukraine and the West.
Many citizens likely calculate that the consequences of the war are less than the political upheaval that would follow, and that the relative stability of the status quo is preferable to the alternative.
Costs Imposed
Ukraine’s strikes are not superficial; they are imposing real costs on Russia.
Increasingly, Ukraine has used long-range drones to attack Russian energy and industrial infrastructure.
Targets have included oil refineries, fuel storage facilities, and related installations, because petroleum products support both civilian economic activity and military logistics, making them valuable targets.
Damage to refining infrastructure can reduce domestic fuel availability (hence the long wait at the gas station) and disrupt distribution, raising transportation costs and triggering a cascade of problems for agriculture, industry, and transportation.
Repairing damaged facilities also consumes money, industrial resources, specialized equipment, and time—all of which could be better invested elsewhere in the war effort.
Meanwhile, Western sanctions can complicate access to certain replacement technologies, making repairs harder.
These disruptions also carry costs, as they can reduce export earnings.
This adds up at a time when Russia must finance military operations, support defense production, and maintain basic economic stability.
Strategic Implications
One major implication of Hopkins’s reporting is that economic hardship alone may not create enough domestic pressure to inspire the Kremlin to end the war.
That is a facet of authoritarian governments: they can sustain prolonged conflicts despite civilian hardship.
Because the Kremlin controls so much of the political environment, it can suppress organized opposition and let the status quo persist.
So, if the citizenry is still on board, Russia’s ability to sustain the war depends instead on other factors, like workforce, industrial capacity, government finances, logistics, and political stability.
Ukraine’s campaign against Russian infrastructure has certainly brought the conflict to Russia, making the consequences more tangible for everyday Russians.
The New York Times reporting suggests civilians are handling those consequences in stride, adapting to wartime realities rather than organizing any sort of resistance movement.
So for the time being, Putin will likely continue to enjoy the political freedom to wage the war as he sees fit, without domestic political constraints.
About the Author: Harrison Kass
Harrison Kass is a writer and attorney focused on national security, technology, and political culture. His work has appeared in Tablet, City Journal, The Hill, The Spectator, and The Cipher Brief. He holds a JD from the University of Oregon and a master’s in Global & Joint Program Studies from NYU—more at harrisonkass.com.
