Proponents of the current military strategy argue that targeting facilities like those owned by Wildberries is a necessary step to bring the reality of the war home to the Russian population and economy. By disrupting the logistics networks that sustain domestic commerce, Ukrainian forces aim to force the Russian leadership to divert resources away from the front lines to protect internal infrastructure. This approach is viewed as a legitimate effort to weaken the state's capacity to continue its military campaign.
From this perspective, the distinction between military and civilian infrastructure has become blurred in a total war environment. Because large logistics companies often provide the backbone for the movement of goods that support the broader war effort, they are seen as fair targets. Supporters argue that these strikes are essential for maintaining pressure on the Russian government and demonstrating that no part of the country is beyond the reach of defensive operations.
Furthermore, the economic impact serves as a deterrent against the continuation of the conflict. When major corporations face operational paralysis, the resulting public pressure can create internal friction for the state. By targeting high-profile entities, the strategy seeks to maximize the psychological and economic cost of the war, thereby incentivizing a change in policy. For those backing this approach, the tactical gains of disrupting Russian supply chains outweigh the risks associated with the strikes.
Ultimately, the focus remains on achieving a strategic advantage that can shift the momentum of the conflict. While the loss of life is regrettable, supporters emphasize that the responsibility lies with the state that initiated the invasion. The continuation of these operations is seen as a vital component of a broader effort to degrade the logistical capabilities that keep the Russian economy functioning under wartime conditions.