# Ukraine’s New Commander Plans Strikes Inside Russia, Testing Red Lines

*Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 4:04 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk*

**Published**: 2026-07-23T04:04:22.733Z (3h ago)
**Category**: conflict | **Region**: Eastern Europe
**Importance**: 8/10
**Sources**: OSINT
**Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/12108.md
**Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries

---

**Deck**: Ukraine’s new commander‑in‑chief, Mykhailo Drapatyi, says he has been ordered to step up counteroffensive actions and launch new operations inside Russia. The shift signals a more aggressive Ukrainian doctrine that could put oil depots, logistics hubs, and border regions deeper in Russia within regular strike range.

Ukraine’s new top general has signaled that Kyiv is preparing to push the war more decisively onto Russian soil, a move that could strain Moscow’s rear areas and unsettle foreign capitals wary of direct escalation. Mykhailo Drapatyi, recently appointed commander‑in‑chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, said on 22 July that his mandate includes stepping up counteroffensive actions and launching new operations inside Russia.

Drapatyi’s comments, reported by international media, mark one of the clearest public acknowledgments by a Ukrainian commander that cross‑border attacks are not only tolerated but now form part of an explicit operational tasking. Ukrainian drones and long‑range weapons have already hit multiple targets inside Russia over the past year, including air bases, oil facilities, and logistics hubs, but Kyiv has often framed those strikes as necessary responses rather than a systematic campaign. Drapatyi’s statement suggests a more integrated doctrine that embeds home‑front pressure on Russia into Ukraine’s broader war plan.

For Russian civilians and workers in affected regions, the stakes are concrete. Overnight on 23 July, Ukrainian drones were reported to have targeted the NS‑Oil liquefied gas facility in Novospasskoye in Russia’s Ulyanovsk region, with further attacks claimed in the early morning. Other Ukrainian unmanned systems focused on energy infrastructure in Russian‑occupied Yalta, while a large fire was observed following drone attacks in occupied Luhansk. In Voronezh, a major Russian city, local monitoring channels described what they called a large‑scale Ukrainian drone attack with several explosions and suggested that a logistics hub of e‑commerce giant Wildberries might have been among the targets. These reports have not been comprehensively verified, but they align with Kyiv’s declared intent to stress Russian logistics and energy nodes.

Operationally, a more formalized campaign of strikes inside Russia could force Moscow to divert air defence systems, radar coverage, and personnel away from the front lines to protect deeper assets. Oil depots, rail junctions, ammunition plants, and logistics centers hundreds of kilometers from Ukraine could find themselves on target lists, increasing the strain on Russia’s internal security forces and civil defence. For Ukrainian planners, the goal is to disrupt the flow of fuel, ammunition, and equipment toward the battlefield and to erode the sense among Russian citizens that the war is distant.

Strategically, this approach carries both potential leverage and risk. If successful, sustained attacks on Russia’s rear could amplify existing economic pressures and complicate Moscow’s efforts to maintain high tempo operations along multiple fronts in Ukraine. At the same time, states providing Ukraine with weapons—especially long‑range systems—will face sharper questions about how their assistance is being used and whether certain categories of strikes risk provoking Russian retaliation against NATO assets or critical infrastructure. Western governments have in the past placed informal or explicit boundaries on how Ukrainian forces employ donated systems, a dynamic that may intensify as cross‑border operations grow.

The broader pattern that is emerging is of a conflict in which distance offers diminishing protection. With drones and stand‑off weapons increasingly able to bypass traditional front lines, factories and logistics parks far from any trench network are being pulled into the war’s orbit. The political cost for Moscow of repeated strikes on its territory, even if damage is localized, could reshape internal debates over resource allocation, censorship, and wartime messaging.

A key insight from Drapatyi’s statement is that Ukrainian strategy is evolving from defensive endurance and localized counterattacks toward a more distributed pressure campaign across Russia’s geographic depth. That makes the war less about a static line in eastern Ukraine and more about which side can better protect its own infrastructure while degrading the other’s.

In the coming weeks, watch for patterns in target selection—whether Ukrainian strikes cluster around specific sectors like oil refining, rail logistics, or airbases—and for any publicly announced adjustments in Western rules on the use of supplied weapons. Russian domestic rhetoric, including calls for harsher retaliation or expanded mobilization, will be another indicator of how deeply these cross‑border operations are biting.