For several months now, neither side on the Russian–Ukrainian front has been able to achieve any significant breakthrough. Russian forces periodically announce the capture of one settlement or another, only for the Ukrainian side to publish information shortly afterwards disputing those claims. As a result, the war has reached a certain degree of stalemate. Modern warfare, however, extends far beyond the battlefield itself. It also targets assets located hundreds or even thousands of kilometres from the front line, deep within the territories of the states involved.
From the outset of the war, both Russia and Ukraine have targeted accessible infrastructure on each other’s territory that they considered strategically important under wartime conditions. Until recently, Ukrainian forces had been striking and destroying Russian oil refineries, ultimately contributing to a fuel shortage. The situation has been particularly severe with regard to gasoline. Nevertheless, despite some public dissatisfaction, Russian society did not appear to be seriously unsettled by the fuel shortage.
Ukraine has now identified a piece of critical infrastructure whose disruption could fundamentally alter public attitudes. Surprisingly, that target has become the warehouses of Russia’s major wholesale and retail e-commerce platforms. The first facilities to come under attack were the warehouses of Wildberries, Russia’s largest e-commerce retailer, which store vast quantities of goods collected from across the former Soviet Union and awaiting delivery to customers.
The latest developments suggest that Ukraine has identified Russia’s most vulnerable—and most sensitive—piece of critical infrastructure. At first glance, strikes against oil refineries or transport infrastructure might appear to be of far greater significance to Russian society. Yet the destruction of Wildberries warehouses has provoked a markedly stronger public reaction and greater public anxiety. This has deep psychological roots, the examination of which reveals that these developments are entirely consistent with the underlying logic.
It is worth noting that, both in the Soviet Union and in a number of post-Soviet states, the post-Soviet period has been characterized by a public perception in which the sense of ownership does not extend to state property. It is well known that, in the Soviet Union, warehouse managers ranked among the wealthiest members of society because they had “access” to a wide range of goods—or, more candidly, because they were engaged in systematic theft. State-owned property was widely perceived as belonging to “someone else” and therefore as something that could be appropriated through illegal means. Unfortunately, this mindset continues to prevail to a considerable extent today. Consequently, oil refineries, roads, and other state-owned infrastructure are still regarded as “someone else’s property.” The goods stored in Wildberries warehouses, however, are different: they have identifiable owners or intended recipients—the
ordinary citizens who have sold or purchased them. Damage inflicted on those goods is therefore perceived not as harm to “someone else,” but as harm done to “one of us.”
In essence, Ukraine’s strikes on Wildberries warehouses have begun to alter public perceptions because, in societies such as Russia’s, critical infrastructure is perceived not as state-owned roads, railways, or factories, but as the Wildberries goods that belong to ordinary people.
In any event, in the fifth year of the war, broad segments of Russian society have finally begun to experience its consequences firsthand. Whether this will lead to domestic change remains to be seen.
