Ukraine Just BROKE Through Russia’s Frontlines Like a Knife Through Butter

If you had told anyone watching the first chaotic
hours of Russia’s full-scale invasion that Ukraine would still be fighting more than four years
later, hardly anyone would have believed you.But here we are.

Not only is Ukraine still
standing, as of early March 2026, but it is, by most measurable indicators, in a stronger
operational position than it was in 2025.

There are a few different reasons for this, all
centering on the fact that Ukraine has been able to develop more effective weapons and tactics over
the course of the war while Russia remained firmly entrenched in the “old ways.

” In fact, there’s
been such an exchange of fortunes that not only has Ukraine broken through Russia’s frontline,
but Russia doesn’t seem to be able to prevent its advance.

The key for Ukraine: hitting them where
it really hurts.

Let’s start with the broader framing offered by Bill Browder, the financier and
anti-corruption campaigner who has become one of the sharpest voices on the economic dimensions
of Russia’s war.

His argument is twofold.

On one side, Russia has made huge tactical mistakes,
which we’ve covered extensively over the course of the four years of war.

But the other argument
is that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is done waiting for Western governments to impose
economic pressure on Russia.

Instead, Ukraine is doing it directly.

With strikes on Russian oil
refineries and attacks on the so-called shadow fleet vessels that Moscow uses to circumvent
sanctions, Ukraine has managed to strike Russia where it hurts most: Right in the wallet.

Every
refinery taken offline, every tanker disabled, is a blow to the revenue stream sustaining
Russia’s war machine.

Let’s look at the numbers.

According to the Carnegie Endowment, Ukraine
knocked out around 38 percent of Russia’s oil refining capacity.

However, that same analysis
suggests that Russia only realistically lost about 6-9 percent of its net fuel export capabilities
(due to having a cushion of excess production).

This was done over the course of 120 attacks
throughout 2025, most of which managed to inflict some damage on Russian oil infrastructure.

The
attacks culminated in 2026 with 40 strikes over the course of January and February, hitting
at least 13 vital targets.

This included an attack on the Volgograd oil refinery, shutting
down 40 percent of its production capacity.

This facility alone accounted for roughly 5 percent
of pre-war fuel exports, essentially allowing Ukraine to further its goal of cutting Russia off
from the resources sustaining its efforts.

This has all been in no small part due to Ukraine’s
ability to reach new targets, a capability that has expanded dramatically since the early months
of the war.

Then, it was entirely dependent on whatever range limitations Western-supplied
weapons happened to carry.

In 2025 and 2026, that expansion is epitomized by Firepoint.

The
Kyiv-based private defense company, founded in mid-2022 by a group of engineers, architects, and
game designers, started in makeshift workshops and has grown to over 2,000 employees operating
across multiple concealed production facilities in and around Kyiv.

In particular, the FP-1
drone deserves a moment of special attention.

The One-Way Attack (OWA) drone is the workhorse
that has been doing the most damage.

With a range of roughly 620 miles, a warhead of over 60 pounds,
depending on configuration, and a design optimized for modularity, ease of assembly, and electronic
warfare resilience, the FP-1 has been credited with conducting more than 60 percent of Ukrainian
deep strikes inside Russian territory.

That means the majority of the strikes on Russian ammunition
depots, oil refineries, and military command centers that have made international headlines
over the past year were delivered by this single domestically produced platform.

The FP-2 was
the next step up.

It’s a heavier hitter with a larger payload but smaller range, designed for
targeting hardened structures.

The smaller range of only 130 miles means that the drone was meant
to destroy command centers or stop Russians from advancing into Ukraine’s territory.

But in early
2026, Firepoint’s co-founder and chief designer, Denys Shliterman, suggested that the platform was
supposed to undergo an update to accommodate a 98-pound warhead to increase its effectiveness.

Above the FP-1 and FP-2 in capability sits the FP-5 Flamingo.

This is Firepoint’s cruise missile,
which carries a 2,540-pound warhead over a range of up to 1,900 miles.

Its airframe is constructed
using radar-transparent fiberglass winding, a technique normally reserved for ballistic
missiles, which helps it evade radar detection during flight.

Production began ramping up in
mid-2025, targeting 210 units per month by autumn.

More importantly, the Flamingo has already
been used, with Ukrainian sources confirming strikes on Russia’s Kapustin Yar test range
in January 2026.

In a separate operation, the missile struck an Iskander missile production
plant inside Russia.

This is a cruise missile, built in Ukraine, hitting the factories that
make the missiles Russia fires at Ukrainian cities.

Which brings us to the pinnacle of
Firepoint’s ambition: the FP-9.

This is a short-range ballistic missile with a range of
around 500 miles, a warhead of 1,700 pounds, and a terminal velocity of roughly Mach 6.

5.

For
comparison, Russia’s Iskander ballistic missile, the system that has caused enormous damage to
Ukrainian infrastructure throughout the war, hits its target at roughly a third of that speed.

In practice, that means air defense systems have a fraction of the intercept window they would
normally have against an Iskander.

And given how Russia has been slowly bleeding S-400s
throughout the war, a widespread deployment of FP-9s could accelerate Ukraine’s economic
sanctioning by missile.

Throughout all this, arguably the most important factor is that
the entire weapons program exists completely separately from NATO and Western constraints.

The ATACMS missiles provided by the United States have a maximum range of approximately 190 miles,
essentially capped to prevent strikes deep inside Russia.

So everything that has reached Moscow or
targeted infrastructure in Russia’s interior has been domestically produced.

If the FP-9 reaches
widespread production, it could threaten Moscow or Saint Petersburg.

Beyond the weapons themselves,
Ukraine has also started to address a systemic problem that has reduced the effectiveness of
its drone campaign since the start of the war.

On March 10, Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov,
who was appointed to the role in January 2026 specifically to accelerate Ukraine’s technological
edge, signed a formal order restructuring how the country buys drones.

The old system was based on
relationships, opaque demand-formation processes, and factors that military analysts have described
plainly as corruption risks.

The result was that Ukrainian frontline soldiers regularly received
drones that didn’t perform as advertised, which they then had to modify and repair by
hand in the trenches.

The new system is much more straightforward.

Military units submit
requests based on their needs.

The General Staff then compiles a procurement list containing
only the technical specifications of the equipment required.

Crucially, the list has no brand names
and no specific manufacturers listed.

The question of which products actually get purchased is then
decided by five digital battlefield data systems: ePoints, which tracks the real combat
effectiveness of equipment in the field; DOT-Chain and Brave1 Market, which record what
units are purchasing independently, reflecting actual demand at the ground level; and DELTA and
Mission Control, which provide synchronization matrices and combat application analytics.

If
a drone doesn’t fly or doesn’t hit targets, the system simply removes all demand for it.

The procurement decision is made by data, not by whoever has the right relationship with the
ministry.

The budget allocation has also changed.

Under the new structure, 80 percent of procurement
funds go exclusively to systems that have demonstrated effectiveness through battlefield
data.

The remaining 20 percent is reserved for innovation, such as new systems being tested
under combat conditions, all without requiring the full bureaucracy that exists in the Western
system.

Fedorov described this 20 percent as the mechanism for rapid testing of new technologies
without unnecessary bureaucracy.

In practice, it means Ukraine can test a new drone design
at scale within weeks of it appearing, rather than waiting months for the certification
process to clear.

Then there’s the scale of Ukraine’s defense industry, which has been
practically transformed.

At the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine had
seven drone manufacturers.

It now has more than 500.

Electronic warfare companies have grown
from two to more than 200.

Private missile manufacturers did not exist; there are now more
than 20.

Unmanned ground vehicle companies went from zero to more than 100.

This scale of growth
is something that hasn’t been seen in the 21st century and has allowed Ukraine to stay on track
with Russia in terms of drone innovation.

On the electronic battlefield, Ukraine has also made
strides in trying to curb Russia’s numerical advantage, especially regarding drones.

Enter
the laser weapons.

Footage shared through Russian Telegram channels, which is itself telling,
appeared to show a Ukrainian-directed energy weapon disabling a fiber-optic guided FPV drone.

The drone in question is what soldiers on both sides call a “waiter,” or an ambush drone
that lands beside a road in low-power mode, waits for an enemy vehicle, then activates and
strikes.

Fiber-optic waiters are controlled via a physical cable that spools out from the drone as
it flies.

Because they don’t use radio signals, they are effectively immune to electronic jamming.

This is precisely why they have become one of the more dangerous threats on the front line.

Of
course, Ukraine has its own version of the fiber-optic drone with similar results, but it
can be argued that Russia made the advancement first and has been using it effectively to
deny Ukraine the opportunity to place its troops near the frontline.

But the new energy
weapon might turn that advantage on its head.

The footage shows a concentrated beam of light
tracking along the fiber-optic cable linking the drone to its operator, after which the drone loses
control and shuts down.

This is most likely the hypothesized Sunray laser system, a prototype
demonstrated to The Atlantic in February, described as car-trunk-sized and capable of
burning small drones out of the sky within seconds.

Serhii Beskrestnov, a Ministry of Defense
advisor and military radio-technology specialist, responded to Russian claims that the footage
is real with characteristic sarcasm.

“Russians say we have found a way to counter fiber optics.

With this thing, we also scan brains and abduct people,” Beskrestnov stated.

But the Russian drone
operators caught on video did not appear to find it funny.

Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery
told reporters shortly before this footage emerged that Ukraine could field battlefield lasers within
one to two years.

Compare this to the average procurement time, ranging from six years and up,
with America’s own anti-drone laser systems being in active development since 2022.

It’s evident
that as the counter-drone race accelerates, with drones becoming the de facto replacements
for traditional human troops on the battlefield, the first nation to make an effective low-cost
weapon could have an enormous advantage.

And that’s precisely why the prospect of a laser
weapon is so unique.

Being powered by electricity, the cost-per-engagement of the proposed weapon
would be significantly lower than the cost to create the offending drone.

This is counter
to the existing economics of drone warfare, where a relatively expensive missile or drone
is used to intercept less costly enemy drones, which could essentially turn the very concept
of drones on its head.

But Ukraine has used this momentum to its full effect.

On the ground,
the battlefield picture across February 2026 suggests that Ukraine is, at least by the
Institute for the Study of War’s own assessment, in a better position than at the start of 2026.

If you want to learn exactly how this happened, make sure to subscribe to the Military Show.

We
post daily content that closely follows everything related to the war.

In short, Russia failed to
accomplish much of its actual goals for the winter season.

Russian troops began advancing relatively
quickly on the Huliaipole and Oleksandrivske axes in late October and early November 2025.

Russian
command likely hoped that these advances would complement operations near Orikhiv, allowing
Russian forces to approach the city from both east and west and eventually move toward Zaporizhzhia.

This maneuver could have allowed Russian troops to bypass Ukraine’s heavily fortified east-west
defensive lines in Zaporizhzhia Oblast instead of attempting frontal assaults from the south.

Remember, Zaporizhzhia was basically one of the last “bastions” of Ukraine’s resistance in the
region, especially after Russia managed to claim a Pyrrhic victory in Pokrovsk after two years
of combat there.

The plan had a certain logic to it.

In early December 2025, ISW assessed that
a tactical breakthrough north and northeast of Huliaipole could allow Russian forces to achieve
operational gains.

Then on December 29, 2025, the Russian command announced plans to link the
Orikhiv and Huliaipole axes in order to advance toward Zaporizhzhia.

Beyond that, the ultimate
objective seemed to be Ukraine’s Fortress Belt, which is the heavily fortified corridor of
cities in Donetsk Oblast, including Druzhkivka, Sloviansk, and Kramatorsk, where Russia has
been positioning to assault as the centerpiece of its spring-summer 2026 campaign.

But this
is where things started going wrong.

You see, Russia’s winter 2025-2026 missile and drone
campaign against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure failed to achieve any of its intended strategic
objectives.

Despite causing significant damage to Ukraine’s power grid and months of hardship for
civilians, Russian forces failed to sever the energy network near the front, and their strikes
couldn’t prevent Ukraine’s defense industrial base from growing in the region.

Ukrainian Defense
Ministry advisor Hanna Gvozdiar stated on February 19 that it had increased production 50-fold since
2022 and reached an estimated $50 billion worth of output.

Russia targeted the infrastructure
meant to stop Ukrainian weapons production, and yet the weapons production grew anyway.

On the
ground, Russia’s tactics were similarly hampered.

Moscow bet on infiltration tactics and offensive
actions with light motorized forces, which ideally means it loses less armored equipment but
very many people.

But by late December 2025, there was already a slowdown because Russian
forces had taken very heavy losses over the preceding months.

The infiltration model
worked when Russian infantry successfully penetrated Ukrainian positions, accumulated, and
consolidated.

But Ukrainian forces prevented the infiltrating squads from getting a follow-up
advance from the rest of the Russian troops, essentially cutting them off in the middle of
enemy territory.

This has likely deprived Russian forces of the starting offensive positions from
which they intended to launch a summer offensive with the goal of reaching Zaporizhzhia.

Then,
Ukraine’s counteroffensive launched in late January exploited exactly that failure.

Ukrainian
forces started pushing Russian forces out of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and undermining Russian
preparations for a spring offensive.

The sudden shift in the frontline has meant Ukraine liberated
over 150 square miles of territory in less than a month, returning more territory to Ukraine than
it lost in mid-to-late summer for the first time since the Summer 2023 counteroffensive.

The
specific units being moved tell the story of how stretched Russia actually is.

The Russian military
command was forced to redeploy elite airborne and naval infantry units from the Pokrovsk direction
and the Dobropillya tactical area in eastern Ukraine to the southern frontline, likely to
respond to those same Ukrainian gains.

These were basically forces that only barely managed
to occupy Pokrovsk just months earlier and have taken heavy casualties as well.

For example,
ISW had not observed the 656th Motorized Rifle Regiment operating on the battlefield since August
2025.

This suggested the Russian military command had previously withdrawn this unit and may have
been holding it in reserve for future offensive operations.

Essentially, Russia is forced to
spend its spring offensive reserve on defense, months ahead of schedule.

The fact that a series
of Ukrainian tactical counterattacks is forcing Russia to make operational and strategic decisions
suggests Russian forces are already overstretched even while preparing for a major offensive.

As a result, the Kremlin could be forced to either abandon its plans for a spring-summer
2026 offensive or significantly adjust them in Donetsk Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, or both.

But Russia’s problem is not simply the casualties.

The entire structure behind Russia’s war machine
is on unstable legs and close to collapsing.

Take, for example, the recruitment numbers.

Around
422,000 people signed contracts with the Russian military in 2025, which is a 6 percent drop from
the approximately 450,000 who signed in 2024, according to Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman
of the Security Council of Russia.

Some Russian regions are reported to have cut the size of their
military sign-up bonuses due to economic strain.

Remember, this is the same military that started
the war with roughly 160,000 troops deployed to Ukraine, then committed nearly 900,000 soldiers
to the conflict.

And according to the most recent estimates, Russia had lost over 1.

25 million
troops in the war, essentially going through its entire pre-war reserve and then another half
of it.

More specifically, the peak seems to have occurred in December 2025, when Russian losses
for the first time exceeded the number of newly recruited contract soldiers.

Russia added
27,400 contract soldiers that month, while its losses reached 33,200 killed and wounded.

In
previous months, conscription numbers were still relatively favorable for the Kremlin, but this
slowdown complicates things greatly.

One analysis suggested that Russia actually needs around 45,000
monthly recruits to have any hope of mounting a serious offensive during 2026.

Considering that
it’s barely reaching two-thirds of that number, it’s fair to say that Russia has essentially lost
most of its tempo, despite still maintaining a healthy numerical advantage overall.

The Kremlin’s
response has followed a predictable pattern of expanding the recruitment pool downward.

Russia
has systematically expanded so-called “special contingents” used to replenish the army.

In 2025,
the category was broadened to include not only prisoners and people under criminal investigation,
but also individuals with unpaid financial debts, including outstanding loans.

Russia has also
increased the recruitment of foreign citizens, particularly from countries it considers friendly,
including states in Africa and South America, with potential recruits lured or even deceived
with promises of financial rewards or citizenship.

This all points to one thing only: that Russia
is slowly being drained of its resources.

On the economic front, Ukraine has slowly managed to
exert its own form of sanctions by destroying parts of Russia’s oil refining and export
infrastructure.

The West has also created more pressure by being more vigilant over shadow
fleet ships moving in and out of the Baltic Sea.

On the weapon front, Russia has arguably lost the
advantage it had through the cheap-to-manufacture Shaheds.

Ukraine’s domestic long-range drones have
a similar procurement cost, but it’s not tied to another country.

Remember, with the US and
Israel in renewed conflict with Iran, Russia is basically forced to concede some of its imported
weaponry from the Middle East.

Even worse, Russia has basically acknowledged that it can no longer
influence the region when it pulled out of Syria in late 2024 after quick opposition offensives
that mirror what Ukraine is trying to do in Donbas.

And on the tactics front, Russia has spent
far too much time, effort, and soldiers failing to capture two vital cities in the region: Pokrovsk
and Zaporizhzhia.

While Pokrovsk eventually fell, it did so only after Russia reportedly lost over
25,000 soldiers in the area, roughly 20 percent of the total casualties.

All of this culminates in
one thing: when Ukraine starts making another push back into Donbas, Russia might actually be
forced to admit that it can’t stop it anymore.

But all of the battlefield reports actually come
second.

The real behind-the-scenes of the war are happening in Moscow itself.