How Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign is causing cracks in the Kremlin

How Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign is causing cracks in the Kremlin

🎙 AtlanticCouncil 👥 125K 📅 July 23, 2026 ⏱ 60 min 👁 866 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-06
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

deep strikesKremlinRussiaUkraineeconomic crisis

Summary

The video is a panel discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, examining the effects of Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign on Russia. The panel includes Natalyia Arno (Free Russia Foundation), Anton Barbashin (Riddle Russia), Mikhail Kasyanov (former PM), and Vladimir Milov (former deputy energy minister). They discuss the economic impact of strikes on refineries and the shadow fleet, leading to inflation and budget crises. They analyze the psychological effect on Russian society, eroding trust in the state’s ability to protect citizens. The panel notes that Moscow and St. Petersburg are somewhat shielded, but regional inequalities are growing. They assess the Kremlin’s propaganda response, which downplays problems and blames the West. The discussion highlights that the war is increasingly personal for Russians, with routine disruptions. The experts conclude that Putin faces significant challenges, including economic recession and public anxiety, making a ceasefire more likely. The overall tone is analytical, with a focus on political and social implications.

156 words

Critical Evaluation

The video provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the impact of Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign on Russia’s internal stability. The panelists bring diverse expertise: a former deputy energy minister (Vladimir Milov) offers detailed economic analysis, a journalist (Anton Barbashin) discusses propaganda and public perception, a former prime minister (Mikhail Kasyanov) provides political context, and a civil society leader (Natalyia Arno) highlights societal reactions. The arguments are well-structured and grounded in observable trends, such as inflation expectations rising to 15% and the central bank’s likely rate hike. The discussion is balanced, acknowledging both the effectiveness of strikes and the Kremlin’s resilience. However, the video lacks concrete data or citations to support many claims, relying on expert opinion. The sources are not explicitly referenced, and the panelists’ perspectives may be biased given their opposition to Putin. The adéquation titre/contenu is strong, as the title accurately reflects the focus on deep strikes and Kremlin cracks. The video does not include a publicité sequence. Overall, the content is valuable for understanding the geopolitical situation, but its reliance on expert opinion rather than verifiable data limits its scientific rigor.

184 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content, which focuses on the impact of Ukraine's deep-strike campaign on Russia's internal stability.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

The video features four experts with relevant backgrounds (former deputy energy minister, journalists, former PM) providing informed analysis. However, it is an opinion-based panel discussion without verifiable data or citations, and the claims are not independently verified.

Key Moments

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

  • Atlantic Council — The hosting institution is a reputable think tank, lending credibility to the discussion.

Contribution & Novelties

The video offers a multi-perspective analysis of the deep-strike campaign’s effects on Russia, combining economic, political, and social angles. It provides current insights into the Kremlin’s vulnerabilities and public sentiment.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Ukraine’s deep strikes — Background on military deep-strike operations.
  • Russian economic crisis — Overview of economic sanctions and their effects.
  • Kremlin propaganda — Analysis of state media narratives.

63 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in quantity and quality of information, with moderate technical level and reliability. This indicates a well-informed discussion but with limited verifiable data.

Reliability 6/10