Russian President Vladimir Putin has directed businesses to assume greater responsibility for defending their assets against drone attacks amid escalating Ukrainian long-range strikes targeting critical infrastructure. Under a decree signed late last month, companies that fail to implement adequate anti-drone measures at key facilities risk the imposition of “temporary management” by the state, a move interpreted as part of the Kremlin’s effort to shift the financial and operational burden away from government agencies.
The decree applies to “critical infrastructure objects,” which include industrial sites such as refineries and warehouses that have been repeatedly targeted by Ukrainian drone strikes. These attacks have reportedly caused significant damage, destroying up to 20 percent of Russia’s refining capacity and setting numerous commercial warehouses ablaze. A former Kremlin official noted that intelligence and military leaders pushed for the decree after businesses showed reluctance to invest in protective systems. The official indicated that the measure was designed to compel companies to act and increase spending on defence.
Drone defence experts reported a sharp rise in business inquiries related to anti-drone technology following the decree’s issuance. Vyacheslav Plaksin, a specialist in drone defence, described the policy as a catalyst prompting companies to allocate resources toward protective measures, with Moscow expressing satisfaction over the increased corporate engagement.
However, the cost of these protective systems varies widely. Some companies have reportedly faced expenses reaching hundreds of millions of rubles, with one factory installing a defence system costing approximately 220 million rubles ($2.8 million) and another business spending over 1.5 billion rubles ($19.1 million) in a heavily targeted region. Businesses continue to debate who should bear these costs, with some voices, including Alexander Shokhin, head of Russia’s pro-Kremlin business lobby, calling for state support. Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, however, has maintained that companies possess sufficient financial capacity to fund their own defences.
The decree has raised concerns among private sector representatives, who fear it may serve as a precursor to enhanced state control or nationalization. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the government has increasingly seized control of certain assets, particularly those previously held by Western firms. While Putin has emphasized that the decree does not intend asset confiscation, some former industry executives interpret it as a tool that could enable temporary state takeovers, especially benefiting entities aligned with the Kremlin, such as the state-backed oil company Rosneft.
Despite the introduction of penalties for inadequate protection, the decree does not clarify specific rules or standards for securing facilities. Existing regulations derive from broader anti-terrorism frameworks and require companies to navigate overlapping requirements for equipment ranging from electronic warfare systems to protective netting. Many of these measures require permits that are difficult to obtain, leaving companies responsible for assembling complex compliance strategies. The government has indicated that a secret list of prioritized critical sites exists but has not released details, and some sectors, such as shopping mall operators, appear less likely to be compelled to implement mandatory protections.
Analysts observing satellite imagery have documented a variety of defensive installations at vulnerable sites including reinforced concrete barriers, anti-drone netting, and deployment of air-defence systems like Pantsir, sometimes placed near residential areas. The sophistication and intensity of such defences generally correlate with a facility’s proximity to the Ukrainian border, with sites in Crimea and western Russia deploying more comprehensive measures than those farther east.
Protection strategies encompass both passive measures and active electronic warfare technologies. However, operational restrictions constrain companies’ ability to neutralize drone threats directly. For instance, while reservists may assist in site security, they are typically unarmed, requiring firms to coordinate with military and National Guard units for armed defence—a task that often stretches these forces from their usual duties.
Experts highlight the financial strain posed by these demands amid broader war-related economic pressures. Alexandra Prokopenko, a fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, noted that the Russian state lacks sufficient funds to simultaneously sustain military operations and develop comprehensive drone defences, leaving companies with limited alternatives but to shoulder the costs themselves.
As Russia contends with ongoing Ukrainian drone attacks, the Kremlin’s latest measures underscore a shift toward compelling private sector compliance and investment, reflecting the evolving challenges of protecting critical infrastructure in a protracted conflict.