Western news reports on Ukraine often recycle Kremlin propaganda without realizing it. Not from malice, but from a shared obsession with drama over strategy. This morning's headlines prove the point: "Russia's Largest Air Attack of War Sets Government Building Ablaze." Over 800 drones and missiles launched overnight. Dramatic images of fires in Kyiv. Cable news anchors describing "massive escalation." By focusing on explosive theater and territorial changes, journalists unwittingly adopt Vladimir Putin's own flawed view of the conflict.
This misreading matters because military professionals see something entirely different. The Institute for the Study of War—a research organization staffed by experienced military analysts and guided by board members including General David Petraeus and General Jack Keane—focuses on logistics, sustainment, and strategic factors that determine long-term outcomes. While headlines focus on kilometers seized and missiles launched, the real story unfolds in ammunition production, industrial capacity, and alliance resilience that rarely make front pages.
Civilian Terror Is Not Strategy
Today's attack—810 drones, 4 ballistic missiles, and 9 cruise missiles—perfectly illustrates this strategic waste. Russia struck a government building for the first time, killed an infant in a residential building, and triggered 11 hours of air raid sirens. But Ukrainian air defenses shot down 751 of the 805 drones and most missiles. Every $6.5 million Kalibr cruise missile that destroys an apartment represents one fewer available for military objectives.
History offers clear lessons here. The Blitz killed 40,000 British civilians but only strengthened London's resolve. American carpet bombing of North Vietnam destroyed cities but couldn't break Hanoi's will. Strategic bombing campaigns targeting civilians have consistently failed to achieve their political objectives—a lesson schooled military professionals understand and civilians rarely do.
Ukraine's power grid, while damaged, continues functioning. Ukrainian morale remains intact. Meanwhile, Russia's precision missile inventory—built up over decades—dwindles with each terror strike. This isn't just immoral warfare; it's militarily wasteful.
Cronies Over Competence
Why does Russia pursue this counterproductive campaign? Because Putin has systematically replaced military professionals with political loyalists. In autocracies, competence threatens while obedience reassures. His defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, was a civil engineer before overseeing Russia's military. Key commanders win promotions through personal connections rather than tactical brilliance.
The result transforms warfare into "loyalty theater." Russia sends waves of soldiers against fortified Ukrainian lines not to win, but to prove allegiance to the Kremlin. Advances are measured in yards, victories prove hollow, casualties become unsustainable. Commanders stage dramatic performances—massive missile barrages, multi-front offensives—because spectacle satisfies Putin more than strategic success.
This dynamic explains Russia's tactical incoherence: simultaneous attacks in multiple directions, poorly coordinated assaults, and the bizarre spectacle of Wagner mercenaries briefly marching on Moscow. Professional militaries concentrate force and maintain clear command structures. Putin's crony system produces chaos disguised as aggression.
Ukraine's Disciplined Strategy
Ukraine, by contrast, demonstrates remarkable strategic focus. While Russia wastes precision weapons on apartment blocks, Ukrainian forces systematically target oil refineries, ammunition depots, airfields, and radar installations. These unglamorous strikes—rarely featured prominently in Western coverage—degrade Russia's actual fighting capacity.
Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian fuel infrastructure have reportedly reduced Moscow's gasoline production by over 15%, forcing Russia to relocate refineries and limit exports. Strikes on airbases have grounded Russian aircraft and forced defensive redeployments. Even Ukraine's 2024 Kursk operation, though Russia retook most territory by March 2025, still forced Moscow to divert over 78,000 troops including elite units to defend its own border.
This disciplined approach extends to Ukraine's restraint regarding civilian targets. While Russia deliberately targets hospitals and schools, Ukraine maintains focus on military objectives even when attacking inside Russia. This moral clarity preserves Western support while maximizing military effectiveness.
The Professional Perspective
To be fair, territorial changes are visual, immediate, and easy to report—perfect for a 24-hour news cycle. But they are often a poor measure of a war's actual trajectory, especially in wars of attrition. Civilian reporters treat minimal advances as significant progress, measuring success like boxing spectators—counting punches landed rather than assessing overall condition.
Military professionals see something different entirely. Retired generals like Ben Hodges and Mark Hertling—who consistently argue that "Ukraine is going to win" and will "ultimately prevail"—emphasize that territorial control obscures the real strategic picture. Where civilian media sees Russia "gaining ground," military professionals observe catastrophic attrition rates. Where reporters count missiles fired, analysts calculate industrial capacity depleted. This isn't blitzkrieg—it's attrition dressed up as progress.
The Real Metrics
By every meaningful measure, Ukraine is succeeding. It maintains territorial integrity across 80% of its internationally recognized borders. Its military grows stronger through Western training and equipment while Russia's contracts through casualties and equipment losses. Ukrainian allies demonstrate sustained commitment while Russian partners—even China—maintain careful distance.
Most importantly, Ukraine adapts while Russia stagnates. Ukrainian forces now strike targets 500 kilometers inside Russia using domestically produced weapons. They've transitioned from defensive operations to complex multi-domain campaigns. Meanwhile, Russia repeats the same failed tactics—frontal assaults, civilian bombardment, nuclear threats—that produced limited results in 2022.
Breaking the Frame
The tragedy of coverage like today's headlines isn't bias toward either side—it's the unconscious adoption of Putin's own strategic framework. By measuring success through explosive spectacle and territorial control, Western media reinforces the very metrics Putin uses to justify continued aggression. The largest air attack of the war becomes the story, not Russia's strategic failure to achieve meaningful military objectives.
Professional military observers know better. They recognize that Ukraine's disciplined resource allocation, alliance management, and strategic adaptation represent victory in progress. The question is whether public discourse can evolve beyond the surface spectacle to understand the deeper strategic reality.
In war, as in medicine, symptoms often mislead. The patient running a fever might be fighting off infection successfully. The army losing villages might be preserving forces for decisive battles ahead. Putin's daily explosions might represent strategic desperation rather than strength.
Until Western coverage stops counting fireworks and starts counting what matters, it will keep getting the war wrong. The generals know better. The press should too.