The article from the Kyiv Independent challenges the Russian narrative that its drone strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure are retaliatory actions against Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries. It references statements from the Russian Defense Ministry claiming that these attacks were a response to supposed 'terrorist attacks' by Ukraine on civilian targets within Russia. This portrayal is contrasted against a backdrop of Russia's previous claims that similar strikes have been retaliations for earlier Ukrainian offensives, particularly following significant military engagements.

Moreover, the article notes that this pattern of framing military actions as 'retaliations' has been a consistent strategy for the Kremlin, starting with the mass strikes on civilian infrastructure beginning in October 2022, which were positioned as responses to Ukraine's strikes on significant Russian military assets, such as the Crimean Bridge. The piece also highlights voices within Russian political circles that continue to refer to these military actions as acts of revenge or necessary responses, perpetuating the narrative designed to justify the ongoing assault on Ukraine's energy networks.

In addressing this issue, the article implies that such rhetoric serves not only to rationalize military aggression but also to bolster public support within Russia for the war against Ukraine. By insisting that their strikes are justified retaliatory measures, Russian officials may seek to frame their actions as defensive rather than aggressive, further complicating the international understanding of the conflict and the humanitarian implications for civilians caught in the crossfire.