The Autumn Sky on Fire

Introduction

As the fourth winter of the full-scale conflict approached, the skies over Ukraine were once again filled with the terror of incoming aerial threats. On the night of 4-5 October 2025, Russia unleashed a large-scale, coordinated barrage of missiles and drones across Ukrainian territory, a stark reminder of the enduring brutality of the war. The attack was notable not only for its scale and intensity but also for its geographical reach, striking targets from the eastern regions to the western city of Lviv, situated a mere 70 kilometres from the Polish border ^{4, 11}. This proximity to a NATO member state triggered an immediate and firm response, with Poland scrambling its own and allied aircraft to safeguard its airspace, a move that underscored the ever-present risk of the conflict escalating beyond Ukraine's borders ^{17, 19}. The assault resulted in the deaths of at least five civilians and left dozens more injured, with residential buildings and critical infrastructure bearing the brunt of the destruction ^{8, 23, 26, 27}. The deliberate targeting of energy facilities, a recurring feature of Russia's strategy, caused widespread power outages, plunging tens of thousands of households into darkness as the autumn chill began to set in ^{4, 8}. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned the attacks as a renewed attempt to terrorise the civilian population and cripple the nation's ability to function ^{8, 26}. The events of that night serve as a critical case study for understanding the current phase of the war, revealing key aspects of Russia's military strategy, the resilience and adaptation of Ukrainian defences, and the precarious security situation on NATO's eastern flank.

The Strategic Context: A War of Attrition and Evolving Doctrines

The massive aerial assault of 5 October 2025 was not an isolated incident but rather the continuation of a strategic shift in Russia's approach to the war in Ukraine. Having failed to achieve a swift victory in the initial phase of the invasion in 2022, the Russian military has increasingly adopted a strategy of attrition ^{13, 15, 31, 33}. This approach aims to exhaust Ukraine's military, economic, and societal resources over a prolonged period, rather than seeking decisive battlefield victories through large-scale ground manoeuvres ^{31, 33}. Central to this strategy is the systematic targeting of Ukraine's critical infrastructure, particularly its energy sector ^{6, 21, 23, 39, 42, 46}. This campaign of strategic bombardment is intended to achieve several objectives: to degrade Ukraine's industrial capacity, to disrupt the daily lives of its citizens, to create a humanitarian crisis during the harsh winter months, and ultimately, to break the will of the Ukrainian people and their government to continue the fight ^{5, 20, 23, 38}.

This strategy is deeply rooted in the evolution of Russian military thought, which has increasingly emphasised the concept of "strategic non-nuclear deterrence" ^{13, 28, 29, 31}. This doctrine posits that a state can achieve strategic objectives without resorting to nuclear weapons by employing a combination of high-precision conventional weapons, information warfare, and other non-military means to inflict unacceptable damage on an adversary ^{13, 28, 31}. The regular, large-scale missile and drone strikes on Ukraine are a practical application of this doctrine, demonstrating Russia's capacity to project power and exert coercive pressure from a distance, thereby compensating for the shortcomings of its ground forces ^{13, 31}.

The application of air power in the Russo-Ukrainian war has been a subject of intense academic debate, particularly in relation to classical air power theories ^{4, 9, 27, 33, 35}. Theorists like Giulio Douhet argued that air power could be decisive by bypassing enemy armies and striking directly at the heart of a nation's industrial and population centres, thereby shattering civilian morale and forcing a swift surrender ³⁵. While Russia's air campaign has not achieved such a decisive outcome, it does reflect a Douhet-inspired logic of targeting the civilian will to resist ^{5, 20, 35}. However, the resilience of the Ukrainian population in the face of these attacks has challenged the more simplistic assumptions of this theory, highlighting the complex interplay of national identity, leadership, and international support in sustaining a nation's morale ^{5, 20}.

The timing of the 5 October attack, as the weather begins to turn colder, is also a significant element of Russia's strategy ^{23, 39}. By degrading Ukraine's energy infrastructure ahead of winter, Russia aims to weaponise the cold, creating conditions of extreme hardship for millions of civilians and placing immense strain on Ukraine's emergency services and humanitarian resources ^{23, 39, 42, 46}. This approach has been described by some analysts as a form of psychological warfare, designed to sow fear, uncertainty, and despair among the Ukrainian population ^{5, 20, 23}. The use of "double-tap" strikes, where a second wave of attacks targets first responders at the scene of an initial strike, further illustrates the ruthless nature of this strategy, which deliberately targets those providing aid to the wounded ⁵.

Anatomy of an Attack: A Multi-Layered Assault

The aerial assault on the night of 4-5 October 2025 was a meticulously planned and executed military operation, showcasing the diversity and sophistication of Russia's long-range strike capabilities ³. The attack unfolded in several waves, employing a combination of different weapon systems to overwhelm and penetrate Ukrainian air defences ³.

The initial phase of the attack commenced at approximately 9:20 p.m. Kyiv time on 4 October, with the launch of numerous Shahed-136 loitering munitions, also known as "kamikaze drones" ³. These Iranian-designed drones, which are now being produced in Russia, are relatively slow and fly at low altitudes, making them vulnerable to certain types of air defence systems ^{42, 45}. However, their effectiveness lies in their deployment in large numbers, or "swarms," which are intended to saturate air defences and force the expenditure of valuable interceptor missiles on relatively low-cost targets ^{28, 32}. During the 5 October attack, the majority of these drones were directed towards western Ukraine, likely with the dual purpose of striking targets in that region and mapping out the locations of Ukrainian air defence assets ³.

As the night progressed, Russia escalated the attack by deploying more advanced and powerful weaponry. Shortly after 2 a.m., the city of Zaporizhzhia in southeastern Ukraine was struck by guided aerial bombs (KABs) ³. These are Soviet-era bombs that have been retrofitted with guidance systems and wings, allowing them to be released from a distance and glide towards their targets ²⁴. The use of KABs in conjunction with the drone assault on Zaporizhzhia created a complex and multi-faceted threat for Ukrainian defenders ³.

The crescendo of the attack came in the early morning hours of 5 October, with the launch of cruise and ballistic missiles ^{3, 4}. Strategic bombers, including the Tu-95MS and Tu-160, were reported to have been deployed, firing long-range cruise missiles such as the Kh-101 and Kh-555 ³. Simultaneously, Kalibr cruise missiles were launched from Russian naval assets in the Black Sea ^{3, 18}. These missiles are highly precise and can travel long distances at low altitudes, making them difficult to detect and intercept ¹⁸.

Furthermore, Ukrainian sources reported the use of Kinzhal hypersonic missiles ²⁵. The Kinzhal is an air-launched ballistic missile that Russia claims can travel at speeds of up to Mach 10 and manoeuvre throughout its flight path, making it extremely challenging for any existing air defence system to counter ^{18, 48}. While the exact number of Kinzhal missiles used in the 5 October attack is unconfirmed, their deployment signifies Russia's willingness to use its most advanced and expensive conventional weapons to strike high-value targets ²⁵.

The coordinated use of drones, guided bombs, and a variety of cruise and ballistic missiles represents a sophisticated tactical approach. The drones serve as a first wave to exhaust and expose air defences, followed by the more powerful and difficult-to-intercept missiles to strike the primary targets ^{3, 30}. This multi-layered strategy poses a significant challenge to Ukraine's air defence network, which, despite being bolstered by Western systems, remains under immense strain ^{12, 15, 30, 43, 45}.

The Human Cost and the Targeting of Civilian Infrastructure

The immediate and most tragic consequence of the 5 October 2025 aerial assault was the loss of civilian life and the infliction of numerous injuries ^{8, 26, 27}. In the western region of Lviv, four people were killed and four others were injured ^{8, 23, 27}. In the southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia, one person was killed and at least ten were wounded, including a 16-year-old girl ^{8, 23, 27}. These casualties were a direct result of strikes on residential areas, a recurring pattern in Russia's conduct of the war that has drawn widespread international condemnation ^{10, 19, 47}.

The attack on Lviv was particularly severe, with an industrial park being set ablaze ^{25, 26}. The mayor of Lviv, Andriy Sadovyi, emphasised that the facility had no military component, further evidence of the indiscriminate nature of the strikes ^{21, 25}. The targeting of such facilities not only endangers civilian lives but also has a significant economic impact, destroying businesses and livelihoods ^{38, 39, 42}.

The primary focus of the 5 October attack, however, appeared to be Ukraine's energy infrastructure ^{4, 8, 23, 38}. In Zaporizhzhia, energy equipment was damaged, leading to widespread power outages that affected over 73,000 consumers ^{4, 17, 28}. In Lviv, parts of the city were left without electricity, disrupting public transport and daily life ^{4, 30, 35}. The attack also targeted energy facilities in the Chernihiv, Vinnytsia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kherson, Kharkiv, and Odesa regions ^{8, 23, 27}.

The deliberate targeting of energy infrastructure, which can be classified as "dual-use" infrastructure (serving both civilian and military purposes), raises serious questions under international humanitarian law ^{10, 11, 14, 19, 36}. While the law of armed conflict permits the targeting of military objectives, it also requires that attacks be proportionate and that all feasible precautions be taken to avoid or minimise civilian harm ^{10, 11, 14, 19, 36}. The widespread and systematic nature of Russia's attacks on Ukraine's power grid, and the foreseeable and devastating consequences for the civilian population, particularly during winter, have led many legal experts and international bodies to argue that these actions constitute war crimes ^{6, 8, 21}. The United Nations has documented the extensive harm caused by these attacks, which have a cascading effect on essential services such as water supply, healthcare, and education ^{7, 16, 22}.

The psychological impact of these attacks on the Ukrainian population is profound ^{5, 20, 23}. The constant threat of missile and drone strikes, the wail of air raid sirens, and the disruption to normal life create a pervasive sense of fear and anxiety ^{5, 20}. This is an integral part of Russia's strategy of attrition, aiming to wear down not just the physical infrastructure of Ukraine, but also the mental and emotional resilience of its people ^{5, 20}. However, there is also evidence to suggest that these attacks have had a "rally-round-the-flag" effect, strengthening Ukrainian national unity and resolve to resist the invasion ^{4, 9, 27, 33, 35}.

The Polish and NATO Response: A Heightened State of Alert

The proximity of the attacks on western Ukraine to the Polish border triggered an immediate and robust response from Poland and its NATO allies ^{17, 19, 22}. As Russian missiles and drones streaked across the skies of the Lviv region, the Polish Armed Forces' Operational Command announced that it had scrambled Polish and allied aircraft to ensure the safety of its airspace ^{4, 17, 19, 22}. This was not a move taken lightly; it represented a direct, albeit defensive, military response to Russian aggression in the immediate vicinity of NATO territory ^{17, 19, 22}.

The decision to scramble fighter jets was a precautionary measure, designed to deter any potential violation of Polish airspace and to demonstrate NATO's readiness to defend its members ²². In addition to the aerial response, Poland also placed its ground-based air defence and radar reconnaissance systems on their highest state of readiness ^{4, 17, 19, 22}. This heightened posture reflects the serious nature of the threat perceived by Poland, which has been one of the most steadfast supporters of Ukraine since the beginning of the full-scale invasion and serves as a critical logistics hub for military and humanitarian aid to its embattled neighbour ^{11, 18, 41}.

The Polish response is situated within a broader context of increasing Russian assertiveness along NATO's eastern flank ^{5, 9, 20}. In the months leading up to the October 2025 attack, there had been a series of incidents involving Russian drones and military aircraft operating in a provocative manner near or in the airspace of NATO members ^{5, 9, 14, 16, 27, 49}. In response to a significant violation of Polish airspace by Russian drones in September 2025, NATO launched a new military operation codenamed "Eastern Sentry" ^{5, 9, 20, 30}. This operation is designed to bolster NATO's air and missile defence posture along the entirety of its eastern flank, from the Baltic to the Black Sea ^{5, 9, 20, 30}. "Eastern Sentry" involves the deployment of additional allied assets, including advanced fighter jets and ground-based air defence systems, and incorporates new technologies to counter the growing threat from unmanned aerial vehicles ^{5, 9, 20, 30}.

The strategic importance of this region is further highlighted by the geographical feature known as the Suwałki Gap ^{6, 21, 32, 34, 41}. This narrow strip of land, which runs along the Polish-Lithuanian border, separates the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad from Belarus, a close ally of Moscow ^{6, 21, 32, 34, 41}. In the event of a wider conflict, many military analysts believe that Russia could attempt to seize the Suwałki Gap to cut off the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia from the rest of the NATO alliance ^{6, 21, 32, 34, 41}. The heightened tensions in this area, therefore, make any Russian military activity in western Ukraine a matter of grave concern for NATO planners ^{6, 21, 32, 34, 41}.

The international relations theories of realism and liberalism offer differing perspectives on the unfolding situation ^{3, 7, 8, 17, 25}. A realist interpretation would view the actions of both Russia and NATO as being driven by considerations of power and security in an anarchic international system ^{3, 7, 8, 17, 25}. From this perspective, Russia's aggression is an attempt to reassert its sphere of influence and prevent Ukraine's further integration with the West, while NATO's response is a classic example of balancing behaviour, aimed at deterring further Russian expansionism ^{3, 7, 8, 17, 25}. A liberal perspective, on the other hand, would emphasise the role of international law, democratic values, and multilateral institutions in shaping the response to the conflict ^{3, 7, 8, 17, 25}. From this viewpoint, Russia's actions are a clear violation of international norms, and the strong and united response from NATO and other democratic nations is a defence of the liberal international order ^{3, 7, 8, 17, 25}.

Conclusion

The massive Russian missile and drone attack on Ukraine on 5 October 2025, and the subsequent scrambling of Polish and NATO fighter jets, represents a significant and sobering moment in the ongoing conflict. It is a clear manifestation of Russia's commitment to a brutal war of attrition, a strategy that deliberately targets civilian infrastructure with the aim of breaking the will of the Ukrainian people. This approach, rooted in an evolving Russian military doctrine that prioritises long-range conventional strikes, poses a profound and enduring threat to Ukraine's survival and has dire humanitarian consequences, particularly as the winter months approach.

The events of that day also serve as a stark reminder of the ever-present danger of the conflict escalating beyond Ukraine's borders. The robust and immediate response from Poland and NATO demonstrates the Alliance's resolve to defend its territory and its heightened awareness of the threat posed by Russian aggression on its eastern flank. The "Eastern Sentry" operation and the strategic focus on the Suwałki Gap are tangible evidence of a new and more dangerous phase in the security landscape of Eastern Europe.

As the war grinds on, the resilience of the Ukrainian people and the steadfastness of international support will be tested as never before. The attacks of 5 October 2025 were not just a military operation; they were a calculated act of state-sponsored terror. The response to this terror, both within Ukraine and from the international community, will be crucial in determining the ultimate outcome of this tragic conflict and in shaping the future of European security for decades to come.