Why Did Putin Pull Out The Nutter Again?

• Petro Oleshchuk
• 10.01.2026, 15:33

Moscow's goal is obvious.

On January 8-9, 2026, Russia launched one of the most massive strikes on Ukraine in recent times. On the night of January 8-9, a swarm of attack drones and missiles were fired at Ukrainian territory, primarily targeting critical infrastructure. The capital, where explosions occurred in several neighborhoods, as well as the western regions of the country, came under attack. A particularly high-profile episode was the use of the Oreshnik ballistic missile.

Russia's large-scale missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure have been part of the Kremlin's long-term strategy since the fall of 2022, and this campaign has only intensified in 2025.

Moscow's goal is obvious. To break Ukraine's economy and will to resist by plunging cities into cold and darkness, and to make it difficult to supply the Ukrainian army by destroying transportation routes and supply facilities. At the same time, such strikes are designed to influence the mood of the Ukrainian population and leadership, pushing them to make concessions in negotiations on pain of further deterioration of the humanitarian situation. This strategy of terrorizing the home front has not brought Russia decisive successes on the battlefield, but it has caused serious damage to Ukrainian infrastructure and created constant pressure on the civilian population. Combined with protracted positional fighting on the front, it has turned the whole thing into a heavy war of attrition.

At first glance, there is nothing fundamentally new in the Kremlin's objectives. The Russian army continues to methodically destroy Ukraine's energy system and other key infrastructure, as it did all last year. However, there are some important nuances that indicate a certain evolution in Moscow's approach. First, this is another (after a year and a half) use of the Oreshnik missile. The Kremlin has demonstrated its willingness to take this step, and on western Ukraine, close to the border with Poland.

This could mean that Moscow is seeking to increase pressure and intimidate not only Ukraine, but also its Western allies. In effect, to show that Russia has in reserve more powerful and longer-range assets against which Ukraine has little defense. Is this a radical change of strategy? Rather, it can be seen as an escalation of the previous strategy. The goal is the same. To force Kiev to capitulate or make concessions. But the means are getting tougher and riskier in terms of potential escalation of the conflict beyond Ukraine.

Secondly, the political context of the current strikes gives them a special connotation. The advent of 2026 has been marked by an intensification of diplomatic efforts to find peace. International summits are discussing ceasefire plans and security guarantees for Ukraine. In particular, in early January, initiatives were voiced in Paris to introduce a limited peacekeeping contingent of European troops into Ukraine after the ceasefire is concluded. However, Moscow sharply rejected the very idea of Western military presence on Ukrainian territory. Russian officials said that any foreign soldiers in Ukraine would be considered "legitimate military targets." Thus, the Kremlin made it clear that it would not accept conditions that could limit its influence or presence in Ukraine even in the event of a ceasefire. Against this background, the Russian missile attack looks like a demonstration of strength and determination to continue the war on its own terms. Incidentally, it was the West of Ukraine that was seen as the location of a potential Franco-British contingent, the introduction of which after the ceasefire was declared by the presidents of Ukraine, France and the British prime minister. Obviously, the Russian side is trying to show that this contingent will be "managed" as well. And there will be no air defense capable of defending against this threat.

Finally, "Oreshnik" is a kind of "response" to the humiliating seizure by the U.S. military of a number of tankers of the Russian "shadow fleet" as part of the American blockade of oil supplies from Venezuela. The tanker even raised the Russian flag and was officially re-registered in Russia, but this did not stop the American "coast guard". All of this made Russian "hurrah-patriots" very upset, and the "Oreshnik" over Ukraine is obviously, from the Kremlin's point of view, intended to help bolster the image and reputation of "invincibility".

At the end of the day, the January 2026 attack rather confirms the permanence of Russia's overall strategy. Waging a war of attrition, putting pressure on the Ukrainian population and infrastructure, rather than marking a radical change of course. However, it does signal a strengthening of this strategy. There is an even greater scope of strikes and a willingness to take risky steps to achieve its goals.

Russia is demonstrating that despite negotiations and calls for peace, it is prepared to continue its destructive campaign. For Ukraine and its allies, this means the need for further strengthening of air defense and energy resilience to survive this war of attrition.

In general, however, the massive shelling on January 8-9 showed that there is no softening of the Kremlin's stance. On the contrary, Moscow is doubling down on missile terror as a means of forcing Ukraine to accept its terms. This is an alarming signal, but it is also a sign of a certain strategic limitation. Having failed to achieve decisive victories on the battlefield, Russia is once again betting on the destruction of cities and the suffering of civilians, which only strengthens Ukraine's determination to resist to the end with the support of the international community.

Petr Oleshchuk, specially for Charter97.org.