Why is the war in Ukraine now hitting Moscow? The strategic gamble behind Ukraine’s deep strikes
When Ukrainian drones and long-range weapons slammed into the Moscow region on the night of September 19-20, they did more than set a refinery ablaze. They forced a uncomfortable question onto the agenda: after more than four years of war, can Russia still claim that the conflict is something that happens elsewhere? The attack on the Kapotnia oil refinery and a logistics site near Sofyino suggests that Kyiv is now deliberately targeting the economic backbone that sustains Moscow’s military machine. But the deeper dilemma is this: by launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, did the Kremlin ever really control the consequences it was unleashing?
What exactly happened over Moscow that night
Russian authorities reported intercepting more than 1,600 drones across the country, with roughly 450 of them heading toward the capital. Despite those claims, infrastructure was hit. The Moscow oil refinery in the Kapotnia district caught fire, and geolocated images showed significant blazes on the site. Russian officials acknowledged several deaths and dozens of injuries.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed responsibility for the operation, saying it struck “one of the key facilities” of Russia’s oil industry as well as a logistics hub. He listed a range of Ukrainian systems used: FP-1, RZ-100, MICH-2000, Palianytsia, Vendetta, Liutyi, Bars, Flamingo, Sichen, and Pelican. Independent analyses, including those from the Institute for the Study of War, partly corroborated these claims, reporting major damage to the refinery and a logistics complex near Sofyino.
Why the Kapotnia refinery matters so much
The Moscow refinery is no minor target. It has the capacity to process around 12 million tons of oil per year, making it a cornerstone of Russia’s energy infrastructure. For Kyiv, the logic is straightforward: the war is no longer confined to the front line. It extends to the economic resources that allow Moscow to fund and supply its military operations. Energy infrastructure is therefore an obvious strategic target.
But this strategy also reflects a deeper evolution of the conflict. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has repeatedly used missiles and drones against Ukrainian infrastructure, especially power grids and cities. Ukraine’s growing deep-strike campaign is partly a response to that long-range war. More fundamentally, it shows that the line between “front” and “rear” has become increasingly artificial.
The political context: who bears responsibility for this escalation?
The primary responsibility for this situation must be placed in its political context: it was Russia that launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Since then, Moscow has continued its military operations despite the enormous human, economic, and diplomatic costs. Strikes against Ukraine have, in turn, caused massive destruction and civilian losses. On September 20, even as Russia itself was being hit, Ukrainian authorities were still reporting civilian deaths in the Kyiv region from Russian attacks.
The new attack on Moscow also occurred in a politically sensitive moment. It took place on the final day of Russia’s legislative elections. Moscow’s mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, accused Ukraine of trying to disrupt the vote—an accusation Kyiv did not frame in the same way. The available facts show the two events coincided, but they do not by themselves establish the attack’s exact political intent.
The propaganda battle and the limits of certainty
This nuance matters. In such an intense propaganda war, each side presents events according to its own narrative. Moscow emphasizes civilian victims and an alleged Ukrainian desire to disrupt elections. Kyiv focuses on infrastructure that contributes to Russia’s war effort. Both dimensions can coexist: a strategic facility can be targeted militarily while exposing civilian populations to considerable risk.
Technological evolution is also revealing. Ukraine is now developing a growing range of weapons capable of hitting targets far from its territory. The Flamingo missile is among the systems cited by Zelensky. As for the “Pelican,” its identification remains uncertain: the ISW notes that available information does not allow a precise confirmation of its nature and indicates that some contradictory hypotheses are circulating.
Russia’s shrinking safe distance
Ukraine’s ability to strike deep poses a direct challenge to Russia. For a long time, Moscow could rely on geographic distance to protect some of its essential infrastructure. That relative protection is now eroding. The war that the Kremlin wanted to impose mainly on Ukrainian territory is producing effects in the central regions of the Russian Federation itself.
The most worrying aspect, however, remains the risk of a spiral. Moscow has already announced its intention to intensify strikes against Kyiv after the September attacks. Each new attack can become a pretext for a new retaliation, and each retaliation for a new escalation.
Russia thus faces a major contradiction. By trying to impose a forced solution to the Ukrainian conflict, the Kremlin helped transform a war initially concentrated on Ukrainian territory into a much broader confrontation. The strikes on Moscow do not mean the war is over, nor that they alone will change Russian strategy. They nevertheless demonstrate that the invasion has not brought Russia the security it promised its population.
The fire at a Moscow refinery is therefore more than a military episode. It symbolizes the return of war to the heart of the country that launched it. And it recalls a difficult truth: when a state chooses to prolong a war of aggression, it never fully controls the consequences it creates.