Russia launched a massive aerial assault on Kyiv this past weekend, firing 90 missiles and drones that included a hypersonic Oreshnik weapon. The strike, which killed at least four people and injured over 100, has triggered rare internal dissent among pro-Russian military bloggers and prompted immediate, sharp criticism of the Kremlin’s tactical choices.
The Oreshnik Deployment and Internal Kremlin Dissent
The weekend bombardment of the Ukrainian capital marked a significant escalation, involving a complex mix of weaponry including Ch-101 cruise missiles, Iskander-M/S-400 systems, and the Zirkon hypersonic missile. Yet, it was the deployment of the Oreshnik hypersonic missile—used for only the third time in the ongoing conflict—that sparked an uncharacteristic backlash from within Russia’s own nationalist information sphere.
While the state-run narrative emphasized the reach and power of the strike, prominent pro-Russian voices challenged the efficacy of the mission. The Frankfurter Rundschau reports that the strike package cost approximately €311.75 million, with the Oreshnik weapon alone accounting for €43.08 million of that total. For some observers, the cost-to-benefit ratio did not align with the tactical reality on the ground.
The missile is simply very expensive iron in the ground. Outside of pensioners, hardly anyone still believes the propagated image of the weapon.
Wladimir Romanow, pro-Russian military observer, via Merkur
Other bloggers, such as Anatolij Radow, argued that these expensive retaliation strikes are primarily designed to distract the Russian public from systemic failures at the front lines, where troops reportedly face catastrophic shortages of manpower and unmanned aerial systems. This skepticism stands in contrast to the perspective of Kirill Fjodorow, who attempted to defend the strike by claiming that reports of damage in Kyiv were exaggerated by Western media, though he provided no evidence to support his assertion that the kinetic energy of the missiles caused the warheads to evaporate upon impact.
Operational Costs and the Strain on Missile Reserves
The sheer scale of the weekend attack—which surpassed the 83 missiles fired during the entirety of May 2025—has raised questions about the sustainability of Russia’s current campaign. According to reporting by the Frankfurter Rundschau, the Kremlin appears to be burning through its high-end reserves in a desperate attempt to force a change in the conflict’s momentum. The strike, which hit every district of Kyiv, also caused significant collateral damage, including the destruction of the ARD radio and television studio in the Pechersk government district.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) suggests that this surge in activity is a calculated attempt to exploit perceived weaknesses in Ukraine’s defensive posture. Analysts at the ISW noted that Russia frequently intensifies aerial campaigns to mask setbacks on the battlefield, such as the vulnerabilities exposed during the June 2025 Operation Spiderweb. Furthermore, the institute posits that Moscow is specifically targeting the current scarcity of Western Patriot interceptor missiles, hoping to overwhelm the layered air defense systems that guard the capital.
The Fragility of Urban Defense and Diplomatic Pressure
Despite the intensity of the barrage, Ukraine’s integrated air defense network—comprised of electronic warfare units, mobile fire teams, and sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems—managed to intercept a significant portion of the incoming fire. Official counts indicate that 44 of 54 Ch-101 missiles and 11 of 30 M/S-400 missiles were neutralized before impact.
However, the fact that several missiles and jet-powered drones penetrated these defenses has turned the conflict into a high-stakes game of attrition. The Kremlin has signaled that this is only the beginning, promising a wave of systematic strikes against decision-making centers and command posts. In a sign of the escalating diplomatic tension, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lawrow reportedly reached out to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, urging the immediate evacuation of American embassy personnel and citizens from Kyiv.
As of late May 2026, the situation remains precarious. The combination of Russia’s dwindling high-end munitions and the growing internal criticism regarding the utility of these strikes suggests that the Kremlin is nearing a strategic crossroads. For the coming month, the focus will likely shift to whether Ukraine can secure additional air defense replenishment to counter the threat of further Oreshnik deployments, or if the persistent pressure on Kyiv will force a shift in military priorities.
