FM spox: Ukraine’s strikes on legitimate military targets in Russia are response to Russian terror

The spokesperson is referring to Ukrainian strikes against military targets located on Russian territory. The article does not name the targets, their locations, or the weapons used. It presents the strikes through Ukraine’s official explanation: they are responses to continuing Russian attacks against Ukrainian people, cities, and infrastructure.

That explanation is linked to a long list of reported damage. Russian attacks killed 15 people in Dnipro, three in Kremenchuk, two 15-year-old girls in Chernihiv, four in Izium, and two in Bilenke. Russian forces also hit a residential area, public transportation, and a civilian enterprise. The article separately reports a shopping-center strike in Kharkiv that injured four women.

The broader point is political and legal framing. Ukraine says attacks on military objectives in Russia should be understood alongside the harm caused by Russian attacks. The spokesperson argues that this ongoing reality explains Ukraine’s foreign-policy actions and how reports about its strikes should be viewed.

The article reports 26 deaths, four injuries, and 350,000 customers losing power. The deaths occurred across several Ukrainian locations. They included 15 people in Dnipro, three in Kremenchuk, two 15-year-old girls in Chernihiv, four in Izium, and two in Bilenke. Those figures add up to 26.

The injury figure comes from a separate report about a Russian strike on a shopping center in Kharkiv. Four women were injured. The article also describes attacks on a Kyiv residential area, public transportation in Zaporizhzhia, and a civilian enterprise in Lozova, though it does not give additional casualty numbers for those incidents.

The electricity figure concerns attacks on energy infrastructure on October 29–30. At least four facilities in the Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Poltava regions were damaged. Substations, transformers, and oil refineries were hit, leaving 350,000 customers without power.

Under the laws of armed conflict, a legitimate military target is a military objective. It must make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, such as by its nature, location, purpose, or use. Attacking it must also offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances at the time. This rule matters because a target’s location alone does not make it lawful.

For example, a weapons depot, command post, or military communications site may qualify if the facts show that it supports military operations. A home, hospital, school, or ordinary business remains civilian property unless it is being used for a military purpose. The article itself does not identify the Russian targets Ukraine struck, so their legal status cannot be independently assessed from the text.

Even a lawful military objective is not automatically attackable without limits. Attackers must take feasible precautions and avoid excessive civilian harm. The claim that a target is legitimate therefore requires more than an official label; it depends on the target’s actual military role and the expected effects.

Ukraine describes the strikes as a response because Russian attacks have caused deaths, injuries, and major infrastructure damage. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson pointed to 26 deaths across Dnipro, Kremenchuk, Chernihiv, Izium, and Bilenke. He also cited attacks on residential areas, public transportation, a civilian enterprise, and a Kharkiv shopping center.

The energy attacks show the wider impact. On October 29–30, Russian missiles and drones damaged at least four facilities in three regions. Substations, transformers, and oil refineries were hit. The resulting disruption left 350,000 customers without electricity. These figures form the factual background for Ukraine’s stated justification.

The spokesperson therefore says reports of Ukrainian strikes on legitimate military targets in Russia must be viewed as responses to ongoing terror. This is Ukraine’s official framing, not a detailed account of each target or an independent legal finding. The article provides no specific Russian target information for testing the claim.

Substations and transformers help move electricity between generating facilities, transmission lines, and local distribution networks. If they are damaged, power may no longer pass safely through the system. Operators may also shut connected equipment to prevent further damage. That can cut electricity to many customers beyond the site that was directly hit.

The article gives a concrete example from October 29–30. Russian missiles and drones damaged at least four energy facilities in the Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Poltava regions. The facilities included substations, transformers, and oil refineries. The article reports that 350,000 customers lost power after these attacks.

This shows why energy infrastructure can have effects far beyond one building. A damaged component may disrupt a regional network, while damage at several sites can compound the problem. The article does not provide restoration times or explain how electricity was rerouted. It does establish the immediate scale: hundreds of thousands of customers were affected.

The legal difference is whether the object or people being attacked are military or civilian. A military objective may be attacked when it contributes effectively to military action and destroying it offers a definite military advantage. Civilians and civilian objects are protected from direct attack unless they lose that protection under specific circumstances. The article highlights alleged attacks on residential and civilian sites.

A military facility might therefore be a lawful target, while a home, shopping center, or civilian enterprise is ordinarily protected. The article reports a strike on a residential area in Kyiv, an attack on a civilian enterprise in Lozova, and a shopping-center strike in Kharkiv that injured four women. It does not provide enough detail to make independent legal findings about any incident.

The distinction also involves how an attack is conducted. Even when a military target is lawful, the attacker must take precautions and avoid expected civilian harm that is excessive compared with the anticipated military advantage. Civilian protection remains central in both cases.

The principle of distinction requires parties to identify what may be attacked and what must be protected. Attackers must direct operations at military objectives, not civilians or civilian objects. This matters because cities contain military and civilian activity close together. The article reports damage to residential areas, public transportation, a civilian enterprise, and energy facilities, showing the kinds of places affected by attacks.

Proportionality adds another limit. Even when a military objective is lawful, an attack is prohibited if the expected civilian harm would be excessive compared with the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Attackers must also take feasible precautions, such as choosing methods or timing that reduce civilian danger. These rules do not make all civilian harm automatically unlawful, but they require it to be limited and assessed beforehand.

In this article, the Foreign Ministry uses civilian deaths and infrastructure damage to explain Ukraine’s response. However, the text does not provide target data, military advantages, or expected-harm assessments. It therefore cannot establish whether particular attacks satisfied these principles.