Ukraine Renews Drone Strikes on St. Petersburg as Russia's Economic Forum Convenes

On the morning of June 3, 2026, delegates arriving at the ExpoForum convention center on the outskirts of St. Petersburg were greeted by a sight no amount of diplomatic staging could obscure: a massive plume of black smoke rising over Russia's second-largest city. Ukrainian long-range drones had struck the St. Petersburg oil terminal — one of the largest oil transshipment complexes in northwestern Russia — setting multiple petroleum storage tanks ablaze [1]. The attack, which flew drones more than 1,000 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, came just hours before Vladimir Putin's signature economic gathering, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), opened its doors [2].

Over the next four days, Ukraine would hit St. Petersburg repeatedly, targeting naval facilities, oil depots, and military infrastructure in what one Russian official described as an "unprecedented" assault [3]. The timing was not coincidental. The strikes occurred as Putin publicly rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's request for direct peace negotiations, telling the forum audience, "I see no sense" in a meeting [4].

Four Days of Strikes

The opening salvo on June 3 targeted both economic and military assets. At 06:35 local time, drones operated by Ukraine's 1st Separate Centre of Unmanned Systems Forces struck the corvette Boikiy — a Steregushchiy-class warship armed with Kh-35U anti-ship cruise missiles — in dry dock at the Kronstadt naval base [5]. Footage released by Ukrainian forces showed at least two hits amidships, destroying the ship's integrated mainmast carrying its primary radar and electronic warfare systems [6]. The Boikiy had been undergoing maintenance since February 2026 after escorting Russian "shadow fleet" oil tankers in the Baltic Sea [5].

The strike on the Boikiy marked the first time Ukrainian drones had successfully reached Russia's Baltic Fleet at Kronstadt, located roughly 1,100 kilometers from Ukrainian-controlled territory [6]. Defense analysts noted the attack followed a pattern established in April 2026, when Ukrainian drones hit the Shagol airfield near Chelyabinsk at 1,700 kilometers — demonstrating that distance from the front lines no longer provides sanctuary for Russian military assets [6].

On the closing day of the forum, June 6, Ukraine launched what CNN described as "extensive drone attacks" against military facilities and refineries around St. Petersburg, targeting three districts of the city [3]. Russia's defense ministry claimed to have downed hundreds of Ukrainian drones over the forum's four days [7]. St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Airport briefly suspended flights during the overnight attacks [2].

The Russian authorities reported two firefighters killed while extinguishing a blaze caused by drone debris, with two additional firefighters and one civilian sustaining minor injuries [2]. Ukrainian President Zelensky reported "positive results" from the long-range strikes, specifically citing the oil terminal hit [8].

The Forum Under a Shadow

SPIEF 2026 — the 29th edition of what organizers bill as Russia's answer to the World Economic Forum in Davos — drew approximately 20,000 guests from more than 130 countries [9]. That figure represents a decline from 2025's 24,200 participants from 144 countries, though it remains above the pandemic-era and early-invasion lows [10].

Source: TASS / SPIEF official data

Data as of Jun 6, 2026CSV

The forum's trajectory since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 tells a story of recalibration rather than collapse. Attendance cratered to roughly 14,000 in 2022 as Western governments and corporations withdrew en masse. It climbed back to 17,000 in 2023, reached 21,400 in 2024, and peaked at 24,200 in 2025 before dipping this year [10].

But the composition of delegates has fundamentally changed. No official state-level European delegation attended SPIEF 2026 [11]. Western business executives who did attend registered individually, with badges omitting company affiliations, and participated only in closed-door sessions [11]. Italy, once represented by its prime minister alongside energy chiefs from Eni and Enel, sent only mid-tier private companies operating roughly 100 manufacturing facilities still in Russia [11].

The vacuum left by Western withdrawal has been filled by delegations from China, India, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Chinese Vice President Han Zheng led a large delegation [9]. Saudi Arabia's contingent, headed by Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud and numbering over 200 officials, occupied a 400-square-meter national pavilion [11]. Other notable attendees included Uzbekistan's President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, Tanzania's President Samia Suluhu Hassan, and — in a more eclectic register — former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, actor Steven Seagal, and conservative U.S. commentator Candace Owens [12]. The Trump administration sent Rodney Mims Cook Jr., chairman of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, to participate in a session titled "Russia–USA: A Cultural Dialogue" [12].

Deals: Volume Up, Geography Shifted

The disclosed value of agreements signed at SPIEF has remained in a narrow band since the invasion: 5.6 trillion rubles in 2022, 3.86 trillion in 2023, 6.49 trillion in 2024, and 6.48 trillion rubles (approximately $77 billion) in 2025 [10]. Figures for 2026 were not finalized at the time of reporting.

Source: TASS / SPIEF official data

Data as of Jun 6, 2026CSV

The composition of those deals has shifted dramatically. China's share of Russian trade has risen from 12% to 35% since 2022, while European imports have plummeted [11]. Agreements worth trillions of rubles now prioritize energy, technology, and transport projects with China, India, and the UAE rather than European counterparts [11].

Whether these figures represent genuine economic activity or staged announcements is contested. The Kyiv Independent described SPIEF 2026 as "just a show for Putin" [13]. BBC Russia editor Steve Rosenberg, reporting from inside the forum, noted the gap between Putin's rhetoric — "There are wars and sanctions. But the economy is developing. Everything is stable" — and the visible reality of smoke columns and economic data showing stagnation [14].

Russia's Economy: The Numbers Behind the Stagecraft

Russia's economic indicators paint a picture at odds with the forum's optimism. The government has cut its 2026 GDP growth forecast from 1.3% to just 0.4% [15]. The International Monetary Fund projects 1.0% growth [15]. Russian economists now speak openly of "stagnation" in most sectors and outright "decline" in some [14].

Inflation sits at 5.2% while the Central Bank holds interest rates near 16% to contain price pressures [15]. Unemployment remains at 3.1% — not a sign of economic health but of a tight labor market distorted by wartime mobilization draining workers from the civilian economy [15]. Oil and gas revenues have dropped more than 25% due to a combination of ruble appreciation, sanctions enforcement, and lower global oil prices [16].

Military spending continues to consume a growing share of the federal budget, crowding out investment in civilian sectors. As one analysis from the Centre for Eastern Studies in Warsaw concluded, Russia's 2026 budget faces "mounting financial challenges" with recovery prospects unlikely before 2027 [16].

Putin Rejects Talks; Positions Remain Irreconcilable

The drone strikes on St. Petersburg coincided with — and were intensified by — the collapse of the latest diplomatic opening. On June 4, Zelensky sent a letter to Putin requesting direct talks and an immediate ceasefire [4]. Putin dismissed the offer the following day at the SPIEF podium, arguing that a ceasefire without a comprehensive settlement would merely allow Ukraine to regroup its forces [4].

Moscow's stated prerequisites for negotiations have remained consistent: Ukraine must withdraw from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions and abandon its bid to join NATO [4]. Kyiv has rejected these conditions as unacceptable territorial concessions that would reward aggression [17].

Ukraine's position has evolved. Zelensky told CBS News in late May 2026 that the current frontline should serve as the basis for a ceasefire, marking a shift from earlier insistence on the 1991 borders [17]. But he has made security guarantees — specifically "Article 5–like" commitments from the United States and NATO — a non-negotiable condition [18]. Zelensky has also said that military deployments by the UK and France in Ukraine would be "essential" to any peace framework, and proposed a national referendum to ratify any final agreement [18].

The U.S. administration set a June 2026 deadline for both sides to reach a peace agreement, according to Zelensky [19]. That deadline has now passed without progress, and the gap between Russian and Ukrainian positions remains vast: Moscow demands territorial capitulation and NATO exclusion; Kyiv demands security guarantees and refuses to cede land.

The Legal Question: Legitimate Targets or Terror Tactics?

Ukraine's strikes on St. Petersburg raise questions under international humanitarian law (IHL) that military lawyers have debated throughout the conflict. The core legal framework requires that attacks target military objectives, that anticipated civilian harm be proportional to the military advantage gained, and that parties take precautions to minimize civilian casualties.

Ukraine's stated targets — the St. Petersburg oil terminal, the corvette Boikiy at Kronstadt, and other military facilities — fall within categories that IHL generally recognizes as lawful [20]. Oil infrastructure that funds a belligerent's war effort has been treated as a legitimate target in prior conflicts. A naval warship in dry dock is unambiguously military.

The Public International Law & Policy Group has argued that Ukraine's targeting pattern — striking oil terminals and military assets while avoiding civilian power plants, residential heating infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and European gas pipelines — demonstrates "a deliberate effort to avoid humanitarian fallout and broader energy destabilization" [20]. This contrasts with Russia's systematic attacks on Ukrainian civilian electricity and heating infrastructure, which the International Criminal Court has addressed by issuing arrest warrants for four Russian officials [21].

However, a full proportionality assessment remains difficult. As one legal analysis from the Lieber Institute at West Point noted, it is "currently impossible to offer an opinion on proportionality because we do not know the targets (anticipated military advantage) for all Ukrainian strikes" [22]. The death of two firefighters and injuries to civilians in St. Petersburg, while comparatively limited, underscore that even precision strikes on military targets in urban areas carry civilian risk.

Russia has framed the attacks as terrorism. Moscow's foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticized Western media for covering the forum's drone disruption while ignoring a Ukrainian drone strike in Starobelsk that killed 21 people [23].

Ukraine's Strategic Calculus

Ukraine's military leadership has articulated several overlapping rationales for deep strikes inside Russia. The most direct is economic attrition: degrading Russia's oil infrastructure reduces the revenue that funds the war [1]. The St. Petersburg oil terminal handles a significant share of fuel exports from northwestern Russia, making it a high-value economic target.

A second objective is military degradation. The strike on the Boikiy eliminated a warship that had been actively escorting Russia's sanctions-evading oil tanker fleet in the Baltic [5]. Strikes on air defense installations around St. Petersburg force Russia to divert resources from the front lines to defend rear areas.

A third, less officially articulated objective is political signaling. Striking Russia's cultural capital during its premier international economic event — with delegates, cameras, and foreign dignitaries present — sends a message that the Kremlin cannot guarantee security even 1,100 kilometers from the front lines [6]. The BBC's Rosenberg observed that Putin's "problem was what was happening outside the congress hall — the massive battlefield losses that Russia has suffered in its war on Ukraine and the long-range Ukrainian drones now penetrating deep inside the country" [14].

Military analysts differ on the effectiveness of this approach. A Foreign Affairs analysis argued that deep strikes represent a "false promise," noting that while unrestricted targeting "would surely improve Ukrainian combat power," the difference is "unlikely to be decisive" on its own [24]. Ukrainian strike planners, working with NATO intelligence, maintain a constantly updated picture of Russia's air defense network to identify gaps for long-range penetration [24].

Non-Western Responses: Studied Silence

The reaction from countries that have maintained neutrality in the conflict has been muted. India, Brazil, Turkey, and the UAE — all of which have refused to align fully with either side — issued no significant public statements specifically addressing the timing of the drone strikes relative to the forum. China, whose vice president attended SPIEF, has consistently called for dialogue while avoiding explicit condemnation of either side's military operations.

The Saudi delegation's prominent presence at SPIEF, led by its energy minister, signals continued engagement with Moscow on energy coordination, regardless of the military backdrop [11]. Turkey, which has sought to position itself as a mediator, has not commented publicly on the St. Petersburg strikes.

The absence of strong reactions from these governments suggests that the strikes have not, at least in the short term, shifted diplomatic positioning among the countries of the so-called Global South. Their calculus — maintaining economic ties with both Russia and the West while avoiding binding commitments — appears unchanged.

What Comes Next

The SPIEF 2026 episode crystallizes the broader stalemate. Russia holds a forum whose international profile is diminishing but whose deal flow remains substantial, now oriented toward China, the Gulf states, and Central Asia. Ukraine demonstrates the reach and precision of its drone program, striking military and economic targets that are both legally defensible and politically dramatic. Putin refuses negotiations; Zelensky's overtures go unanswered; the U.S. deadline passes without result.

The smoke over St. Petersburg has cleared. The underlying conditions that produced it have not.