More than four years after the start of the war in Ukraine, the consequences of the conflict are increasingly being felt inside Russia itself. For a long time, much of the Russian population was shielded from the direct effects of the fighting. Today, however, Ukrainians’ long-range strikes on strategic infrastructure, fuel shortages, and a slowing economy are putting significant pressure on the social contract that has underpinned Vladimir Putin’s rule for more than two decades.
According to political analysts, this social contract was based on an implicit agreement: in exchange for political stability, improving living standards, and a sense of security, Russian citizens accepted restrictions on political freedoms. However, Ukraine’s growing ability to strike targets deep inside Russian territory is challenging one of the Kremlin’s key promises—the protection and security of its population.
In recent days, Ukraine has reportedly targeted several oil refineries and energy facilities, including the Omsk refinery in western Siberia, located nearly 2,800 kilometers from the Ukrainian border. The attack, considered one of the deepest strikes carried out by Kyiv since the beginning of the conflict, temporarily disrupted operations at Russia’s largest refinery. Other energy installations have also been hit, affecting fuel distribution networks across the country.
These attacks have quickly produced visible consequences for ordinary Russians. In several regions, motorists have faced long queues at gas stations, while some areas have experienced fuel shortages. Despite government subsidies aimed at containing price increases, authorities have struggled to restore normal supply levels, fueling public frustration and encouraging the emergence of a parallel fuel market.
Experts also point to significant logistical challenges. Transporting fuel by rail has been hindered by a shortage of tanker wagons, most of which are operated by private companies. Even increased imports would not provide an immediate solution, as transportation and distribution delays could take several weeks to overcome.
At the same time, Russia’s economy is showing signs of slowing after years of growth driven largely by massive government spending linked to the war effort. Economic expansion has begun to lose momentum, while the federal budget deficit continues to widen. Although oil export revenues still provide substantial support to public finances, they are no longer sufficient to fully offset the rising costs of military operations and other war-related expenditures.
Concerns are also growing within the banking sector. Reports indicate that an increase in high-risk lending, particularly to defense-related industries and state-backed projects, is gradually weakening financial institutions. Rising levels of non-performing loans and a growing number of small and medium-sized business failures have raised fears that Russia’s financial system could come under greater strain if economic conditions continue to deteriorate.
Meanwhile, the European Union is preparing a new package of sanctions targeting Russian banks and financial networks, a move that could further increase economic pressure on Moscow. While many economists believe an immediate financial crisis remains unlikely, they warn that Russia may face increasingly difficult economic choices in the months ahead.
For many observers, these developments reflect a profound shift in Russia’s domestic situation. While the war had previously seemed distant from the daily lives of many citizens, attacks on Russian territory, supply disruptions, and mounting economic pressures are gradually undermining the stability model that has long been one of the central pillars of Vladimir Putin’s political authority.
