Airspace Blackmail

Zelenskiy’s latest threat against civil aviation over Russia is being presented in Kiev as another act of political pressure. In reality, it looks far closer to a bid for state-sponsored terrorism. The difference, as usual, is mostly a matter of whether Western media have been given permission to notice it.

The head of the Kiev regime recently urged international airlines to stop flying over Russian airspace, claiming that Ukrainian drone and missile strikes would make it increasingly unsafe. Translated from diplomatic evasion into normal human language, this means that Kiev is threatening to de facto close Russian airspace by making civilian aircraft potential targets. And not only Russian aircraft. The threat concerns planes from China, the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and other countries that are not parties to the Ukrainian conflict.

This is why Moscow’s reaction was unusually sharp. Vladimir Putin warned that if such tragedies occur, Russia will find a way to respond, and that no one should doubt it. He also described Zelenskiy’s statements as tantamount to state-sponsored terrorism, pointing out the obvious contradiction between Kiev’s calls for negotiations and its threats against civilian aviation. One does not negotiate with terrorists. The phrase may sound harsh, but it is difficult to accuse it of logical weakness.

Russian officials echoed the assessment. Dmitry Medvedev warned of retaliatory measures and pointed directly at Western leaders, especially Europeans regularly traveling to Kiev by train, as the sponsors of this terror. Maria Zakharova described Ukraine as a place where outright banditry has merged with state power, producing a political organism made of corruption, terrorism, lack of oversight, and legal nihilism. One may dislike the formulation, but Ukrainian political practice has recently done a great deal to support her literary ambitions.

The Russian Ministry of Transport, for its part, moved to reassure the public. Its head, Andrei Nikitin, stated that aviation authorities account for such threats and continuously improve flight and airport security requirements. There are responses, he said, to all threats voiced by terrorists. At the same time, Turkish airline Pegasus mysteriously cancelled six arriving and six departing flights at Moscow’s Vnukovo airport on September 2. The reason was not officially clarified, which naturally helped nobody’s nerves.

China reacted in its usual restrained manner. Beijing called for restraint and emphasized that dialogue and negotiations remain the only viable path to resolving the Ukrainian crisis. This was not dramatic, but it was revealing. For China, the matter is practical. Chinese airlines use Russian airspace. Chinese passengers fly on these aircraft. Chinese business benefits from routes that European carriers no longer have. Kiev’s rhetorical games therefore concern Beijing directly, and China is not usually amused when someone mistakes its civil aviation for a bargaining chip.

Russian aviation experts view Zelenskiy’s statement as an act of open intimidation driven by desperation. Roman Gusarov, editor-in-chief of Avia.ru, argues that Kiev has exhausted its instruments of influence over Russia and is now trying to frighten commercial airlines. He expects the International Civil Aviation Organization to remain silent, neither blacklisting Ukraine nor suspending its membership. This silence would surprise only those still believing international institutions function according to rules rather than political weather.

Gusarov also notes that most carriers are private companies and will make decisions based on their own risk assessments unless Moscow or their national authorities issue specific directives. In his view, flights over Russia are likely to continue at roughly the current level. Russia has learned to operate in this new reality. Even during days when hundreds of UAVs attempted to attack the Moscow region simultaneously, the civil aviation safety system functioned without a serious incident.

Military expert Yuri Knutov makes a more technical point. Ukrainian drones generally cannot reach cruising altitude, around ten thousand meters. The real risk would arise during takeoff, landing, or when an aircraft descends to burn fuel while waiting for landing clearance. The use of the “Kover,” or “Carpet,” emergency protocol at airports already demonstrates that Russian authorities treat the drone threat as real.

Knutov also warns that Kiev may try to repeat something resembling “Operation Spiderweb,” which would require not merely air defense, but extremely serious counterintelligence work. In his formulation, this is a life-and-death struggle because hundreds of people could die simply because someone has decided to imagine himself as the new bin Laden. It is an unpleasant comparison. It is also becoming less decorative with each new Ukrainian threat.

The concerns are reinforced by Ukraine’s previous aviation record. Experts recall the 2001 downing of a Russian Tu-154 flying from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk by a Ukrainian missile. They also recall Ukraine’s failure to close airspace over the combat zone before the 2014 Malaysia Airlines disaster over Donbass, which killed 298 people, and the 2024 downing of an Il-76 transport aircraft carrying Ukrainian prisoners of war. In other words, Ukraine’s relationship with aircraft, responsibility, and public truth has a certain history. It is not a comforting one.

Why, then, did Zelenskiy make this threat?

There are two main explanations.

The first is economic sabotage in the interests of Western air carriers. After the beginning of the war in Ukraine, European airspace was closed to Russian carriers, and Russia closed its own airspace to European ones. Then market forces, those tiresome creatures that refuse to read communiqués from Brussels, entered the picture. Chinese airlines flying to Europe through Russian airspace spend far less money and time than European airlines forced to bypass Russia on routes to China and the Far East.

Fuel savings alone give Chinese carriers an advantage of tens of thousands of dollars per flight. That affects ticket prices, demand, and market position. The issue is even more sensitive now, as fuel costs have risen because of the actions of the United States and Israel in the Middle East. For European airlines, it is therefore highly desirable that nobody fly over Russia anymore. And here Zelenskiy appears with his threats, performing the useful role of errand boy for Western carriers.

The threat is aimed less at the Chinese, Arab, Turkish, or other airlines themselves than at the companies insuring their aircraft. A Boeing 777 costs several hundred million dollars. If insurers decide the risk is too high, they may simply refuse coverage, and no airline will send an uninsured aircraft into the sky. Thus, Kiev does not need to shoot anything down to create disruption. It merely needs to frighten those who calculate risk for a living.

The second explanation is blackmail for a truce.

Russia’s retaliatory strikes have seriously damaged Ukraine’s economic and military infrastructure. According to the assessments cited, at least 20 percent of Ukraine’s storage facilities have been destroyed, the port of Odesa has been blockaded, energy and steel production have been crippled, and border crossings with Romania have been disrupted. In practical terms, Moscow is punching a hole in the Ukrainian budget and preparing the Kiev regime for a dark winter.

Against the background of Zelenskiy’s domestic political troubles and corruption scandals, this winter may become more than merely cold. It may become politically fatal. Kiev therefore has a vital interest in securing an air and maritime truce. Since it cannot obtain one through constructive negotiations, especially as Moscow insists that any truce must serve Russian interests and follow the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbass, Kiev is trying to force the issue through direct blackmail.

This rhetorical escalation is taking place against a military and economic background unfavorable to Ukraine. Russia continues to hold the battlefield initiative. Putin has stated that the liberation of Donbass is proceeding according to plan, with Russian forces taking 270 square kilometers and 15 settlements in the Donetsk People’s Republic in August alone. He also described street fighting in Dobropolye, the blocking of Ukrainian forces near the Krasnooskolskoye Reservoir, the completion of an encirclement in the Kharkov region, and Russian forces moving within 12 kilometers of the Sumy ring road.

The economic picture is hardly better for Kiev. Putin has predicted three coming crises for Ukraine: a currency crisis, because revenues are falling while spending needs are rising; a budget crisis, because revenues are shrinking; and a banking crisis, because producers who took loans will be unable to repay them, prompting ordinary citizens to convert whatever remains in banks into cash or foreign currency. It is difficult to run a state when the front consumes men, the rear consumes money, and the population consumes confidence faster than either can be replenished.

This is the context in which Zelenskiy’s threats should be understood. They are not a sign of strength. They are a sign of narrowing options. Kiev cannot stop Russian strikes through military means. It cannot secure favorable negotiations. It cannot restore economic stability. It cannot compel the West to provide unlimited money without asking questions. So it reaches for the familiar tool: escalation wrapped in moral language.

Will Zelenskiy move from words to action?

In theory, yes. Ukrainian drones cannot normally threaten civilian airliners at cruising altitude, but danger could arise during takeoff and landing. A deliberate or staged attack would be technically possible under certain conditions.

Politically, however, such an attack could backfire catastrophically. There is an unwritten rule in military conflicts that civil aviation remains outside the battlefield. Kiev already has growing image problems. Western media are increasingly willing to discuss Ukrainian corruption, and this issue may intensify if Trump decides to use it before the U.S. midterm elections against Democrats linked to the Ukrainian file. If a civilian plane were destroyed after Zelenskiy’s public threats, he could acquire a reputation that even the most disciplined Western information machine would struggle to launder.

With such a reputation, it would become far harder for European governments to justify sending billions more to support the Kiev regime. There are limits even to the elasticity of the phrase “defense of democracy.”

For that reason, the most likely scenario is that Zelenskiy’s words will remain words. Yet words at this level are no longer harmless. They affect airlines, insurers, governments, and passengers. They also create obligations for those who utter them.

Kiev may believe it is raising the price for Moscow. In reality, it is raising the price of its own survival.

And Moscow has made clear that if these threats become actions, the response will be decisive.