Proponents of the 40-day campaign argue that it is a vital evolution in Ukraine’s defense strategy, shifting the burden of the war back onto the aggressor. By targeting the economic and logistical foundations of Russia’s military, Kyiv is finally addressing the disparity in resources that has allowed Moscow to sustain its offensive for years. Supporters emphasize that this is not merely about destruction; it is about creating a cost-prohibitive environment for the Kremlin, where the price of continuing the war—in terms of lost oil revenue, damaged infrastructure, and internal political pressure—eventually outweighs the perceived benefits of occupation.
This approach has also proven effective in securing stronger international backing. The campaign has demonstrated to Western partners that Ukraine can use advanced technology with precision and strategic intent. This has led to renewed commitments, including agreements to co-manufacture critical defense equipment like Patriot interceptors. For many, the campaign is a necessary demonstration of resolve, proving that Ukraine is capable of seizing the initiative and forcing Russia to defend its own territory, rather than just reacting to attacks on its own soil.
Furthermore, the focus on the shadow fleet and energy infrastructure directly undermines the mechanisms Russia uses to bypass international sanctions. By disrupting these networks, Ukraine is effectively working in tandem with the global economic restrictions intended to isolate the Russian war machine. Supporters maintain that this pressure is essential to prevent a frozen conflict, forcing Moscow to eventually confront the reality that its current path is unsustainable.