Weaponizing Winter: Energy Infrastructure in Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
By Kie Jacobson – Rise to Peace Fellow
Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure provide a stark image not only of how critical these systems are but also of their vulnerability. Strikes against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure are not new, but the intensity of the assault during this winter combined with the severity of the season itself provide a grim view of Russian strategy. From power plants to transmission networks, every aspect of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure has been subject to large-scale missile and drone attacks, leaving millions of Ukrainians without electricity, heating, or reliable access to water during a season when temperatures reached subzero levels.
Particularly as climate change exacerbates seasonal extremes, the role of energy infrastructure in modern society becomes increasingly central. Electricity powers homes, hospitals, water systems, communications networks, and transportation systems. When energy grids are damaged or disrupted, the consequences cascade across multiple sectors simultaneously, especially across critical areas of civilian life. In Ukraine, where winter temperatures frequently fall below freezing, access to electricity and heating is essential for civilian survival. As a result, attacks on energy infrastructure have far-reaching effects beyond the immediate destruction of physical facilities.
The consistent targeting of Ukraine’s energy system displays how infrastructure is being used as a mechanism of civilian pressure in contemporary warfare. While infrastructure may be framed as a legitimate military objective, especially in relation to defense production or communication networks, its destruction produces widespread and predictable hardship among civilian populations. In practice, attacks on infrastructure then function as a form of indirect civilian targeting, where the systems that sustain civilian life are attacked in order to exert pressure on society as a whole.
Understanding Energy Infrastructure
Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is made up of a mix of nuclear, gas, coal, and renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric power. Prior to the full-scale invasion, slightly over half of its electricity was generated by nuclear plants, with the Zaporizhzhia plant as a primary component of the system. In addition, Ukraine’s energy system is highly centralized, contrasting with the decentralized grid structures more common across Europe. In practice, this has made Ukraine’s power grid particularly sensitive to disruption and damage.
Prior to 2022, important progress had been made towards reducing reliance on Russian energy. Since 2017, Ukraine has been focused on aligning its energy infrastructure with the rest of continental Europe, breaking its previous integration with Russian and Belarusian systems. Moscow’s willingness to exploit Ukraine’s vulnerability to energy disruptions had already been exposed in prior disputes. During the Donbas War, the Luhansk thermal power plant was shelled by Russian forces in 2015. Earlier gas disputes also indicated Moscow’s willingness to utilize energy dependence for political leverage. Despite maintaining that its decision stemmed from pricing issues, Moscow paused natural gas shipments to Ukraine during the winters of 2006 and 2010. Given Russia’s familiarity with the Soviet energy model inherited by Ukraine, it is unlikely that Russian leaders were unaware that Ukraine’s system is susceptible to disruption.
Environmental Harm in Infrastructure Damage
Attacks on energy infrastructure produce costs that extend beyond the loss of electricity. In Ukraine, the lack of caution Russia has shown in targeting Ukrainian infrastructure has raised concerns about long-term environmental damage. Strikes on power plants and industrial facilities risk fires, fuel leaks, and chemical contamination. Moreover, damage to thermal power plants can release pollutants into surrounding ecosystems, while damaged energy facilities may contaminate soil and water sources. In conflict zones, the risk of environmental harm is often compounded by the difficulty of conducting rapid repairs or environmental monitoring.
However, the greatest threat is posed by attacks on nuclear plants. Ukraine’s three other nuclear plants, Rivne, Khmelnytskyi, and South Ukraine, remain operational and are located away from the frontline but still subject to heavy drone and missile bombardment. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, one of the world’s largest and biggest in Europe, represents a particularly grave concern when considering humanitarian consequences and environmental harm. Even though the plant has been under Russian control since 2022, the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly warned that the ongoing conflict could lead to a radiation leak, sparking fears of nuclear catastrophe. Although the reactors are shut down, the state of the Zaporizhzhia plant has declined over the course of the war, especially with the destruction of the Kakhovka dam endangering the plant’s cooling systems.
In 2023, the collapse of the Kakhova dam caused mass flooding while draining the Kakhova reservoir. In addition to a humanitarian crisis affecting drinking water and food supplies, the loss of the dam also marks an environmental catastrophe. Floodwaters carried decades-worth of industrial and agricultural waste that had previously been contained in sediment at the bottom reservoir throughout the affected region. This was in addition to machine oil spills that occurred during the flooding, and later reached the Black Sea. While devastating in the short term, the long-term consequences of the dam’s collapse have yet to become apparent, not just for the environment but for the residents of the region. Such events are also an additional strain on Ukraine’s already stretched resources, as humanitarian relief must be organized alongside infrastructural repairs and environmental mitigation.
Strategic Escalation
Targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure carries several significant risks, both immediate and long-term, for civilian populations and for the country’s ability to function. The centralized system is characterized by large generation facilities, with long transmission lines supplying the rest of the country. This means that for everything from arms production to basic heating, much of the country is dependent on a limited number of energy nodes. This reality is not lost on Russia. The Zaporizhzhia power plant has not been operational since Russian forces captured the site in 2022, increasing reliance on the three remaining nuclear plants under Ukrainian control. The Kakhovka hydroelectric plant was destroyed, and all of Ukraine’s thermal plants have been subject to damage or destruction.
Infrastructure has long played a strategic role in armed conflict. The logic underlying strategic bombing during the Second World War is based on the idea that industrial facilities, transportation networks, and energy systems support both military operations and civilian economies. Disrupting these systems can weaken an opponent’s logistical capacity, reduce industrial production, and complicate the functioning of government institutions. The destruction of infrastructure also imposes significant economic costs in terms of resources lost and resources re-allocated for recovery. Although strategic bombing was shown not to be a decisive factor in war, it is for the aforementioned reasons that infrastructure often becomes a target during periods of escalation in war. In Ukraine, the systematic targeting of energy infrastructure reflects this logic.
2025 marked a turning point in Russian attacks on energy infrastructure. Not only was it the first time Russia attacked Ukrainian domestic gas production, but over half of production was reportedly destroyed. Given that the majority of Ukrainians rely on a centralized gas supply, this destruction carries significant consequences for civilians. The scale and timing of these attacks, during winter months, indicate that the civilian effects of infrastructure disruption are involved in this strategy.
Infrastructure as a Tool for Civilian Coercion
Beyond physical hardship, infrastructure attacks add an additional psychological pressure across society. Continuous blackouts and uncertainty about the stability of essential services can undermine the sense of security that civilians depend upon in everyday life. Families must adjust their daily routines around the availability of electricity, plan for storing water and preparing for extended outages. Businesses must adapt to unpredictable operating conditions, while public institutions must continuously manage emergency contingencies.
The unfortunate reality is that Ukraine’s capacity for repair is exceedingly strained. Four years of repeated strikes on energy infrastructure have taken a toll. Ensuring quick repair capabilities has been discussed as potentially being more cost-effective than heavy investment in protective measures, but Russia’s intensifying attacks have pushed repair capabilities to the limit. The specialized skills and manpower needed for these types of repairs is low, compounded by dangerous working conditions that further slow repairs. Equipment shortages pose an additional obstacle. Ukraine’s power grid transmits electricity at higher voltages than most of Europe, where this type of equipment is only in use by the US, Russia, and South Korea. As a result, procurement of second-hand compatible equipment is increasingly hard. Manufacturing the equipment suitable for Ukraine’s needs takes longer to produce than its lower voltage counterparts, placing further strain on a system already under significant pressure.
Outlining these pressures illustrates how infrastructure attacks function as a form of indirect civilian targeting. Belligerents target the systems that sustain civilian life, with the resulting disruptions imposing collective hardship across the entire population.
From a strategic perspective, this approach can serve several purposes. Widespread infrastructure disruption can strain government resources, disrupt economic activity, and weaken societal morale. Even if civilian suffering does not immediately alter political decision-making, it still represents a long-term pressure that may influence the broader trajectory of a conflict.
The Ukrainian case demonstrates how the targeting of critical infrastructure can serve as a tool to pressure a broader population. Energy infrastructure becomes not only a logistical target but also a mechanism for imposing hardship on civilian populations. As modern societies become increasingly dependent on interconnected technological systems, the potential for infrastructure attacks to generate widespread civilian harm is likely to grow.
Conclusion
The attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure demonstrate how modern warfare can target civilian societies through the systems that sustain them. By disrupting electricity networks, belligerents can impose widespread hardship across entire populations without directly targeting
civilians themselves. This strategy echoes earlier wartime practices, particularly the strategic bombing campaigns of the twentieth century, which sought to weaken enemy resilience by destroying industrial and urban infrastructure.
Yet the humanitarian consequences of infrastructure warfare are increasingly difficult to ignore. As societies become more dependent on complex technological systems, attacks on energy infrastructure produce effects that disrupt essential services, weaken economic stability, and threaten civilian well-being. Protecting civilians in modern conflicts therefore requires greater attention to the systems that support everyday life.
However, Ukraine’s experience is also demonstrating evolution and response. Repeated attacks on its centralized energy facilities have accelerated efforts to decentralize and increase resilience within its power system. Measures such as the diversification of energy sources, with the inclusion of renewable energy in planning, and dual-fuel technology mark efforts to shift away from a highly centralized system that is vulnerable to targeting. In doing so, the objective is to minimize the cascading effects of disruptions in energy infrastructure.
Ukraine’s experience highlights the evolving nature of civilian vulnerability in contemporary warfare. Ensuring meaningful protection for civilian populations will increasingly depend on safeguarding the infrastructure that sustains them.
