Proponents of the strike argue that in a total war scenario, the distinction between civilian and military infrastructure becomes increasingly blurred. Large-scale logistics hubs like those operated by Wildberries are essential for maintaining the economic stability that supports the Russian state's war effort. By disrupting these supply chains, forces aim to impose a tangible cost on the aggressor, forcing the leadership to divert resources toward domestic security and away from the front lines.
From a tactical perspective, the ability to strike deep within Russian territory serves as a necessary deterrent. Supporters suggest that if the Russian public and business sector remain insulated from the realities of the conflict, there is little incentive for the government to seek a diplomatic resolution. Targeting major commercial nodes sends a clear message that no part of the country is beyond the reach of defensive or retaliatory measures.
Furthermore, proponents emphasize that these facilities often provide logistical support for the movement of goods that sustain the military-industrial complex. Even if a warehouse is primarily used for consumer retail, its capacity to store and distribute goods makes it a high-value target in a war of attrition. The goal is to degrade the overall efficiency of the Russian economy, thereby weakening the state's capacity to continue its military operations over the long term.
Ultimately, those who back these operations view them as a legitimate exercise of military strategy. They argue that the responsibility for the loss of life lies with the leadership that initiated the conflict, rather than those who are forced to employ unconventional methods to defend their sovereignty. The focus remains on achieving a strategic advantage that could eventually lead to a cessation of hostilities.