Vladimir Putin has finally responded to Volodymyr Zelensky's announcement that Ukrainian drones will fly over Russia more and more often - and the response was not diplomatic. "If that is said out loud, then it is simply a declaration of state terrorism," the Russian president told reporters in Bishkek, after the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit.

He then tied the statement to the peace talks, with a sentence that shuts every door at once: Russia does not negotiate with terrorists. And he added a warning - "if, God forbid, such tragedies occur, we will find ways to respond."

What did Zelensky actually say? That he is warning airlines, insurers and everyone using Russian airspace that Ukrainian drones will be operating over Russia more and more frequently. His wording was careful: "Ukraine does not threaten civil aviation as such... Russian airspace will de facto close." He maintains that Ukraine strikes military targets and the infrastructure of the war economy, not passenger aircraft.

Who is still flying there

European and American carriers left Russian airspace long ago. But Chinese, Turkish and Emirati airlines continue to fly over Russia, and it is their passengers Zelensky is really addressing. Risk assessments for 2026 say there will almost certainly be Ukrainian drone strikes every single day, reaching deeper into Russian territory.

That is where the real problem with warnings of this kind lies. When one state tells insurers that the sky over another state is no longer safe, in practice it means commercial flights will cost more, be rerouted, or stop. That is not a military operation - it is economic pressure delivered by military means. And it works without a single missile being fired.

Putin, for his part, announced that Russian forces have been ordered to carry out "massive strikes" on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, in response to Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries. So this round ends the way every one of them begins - the two sides hitting each other's generators and refineries, and come November it is households left without power, not general staffs.

How many times does the same cycle have to repeat before somebody admits that "the response to the attack" stopped being a response long ago and became a schedule?