The Armed Forces of Ukraine vs. Ozon: Once again, they "didn't expect it"
Rake, rake and more rake
The shift of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' focus to Ozon's logistics infrastructure was logical, predictable, and, most distressingly, an ignored step. For five weeks, from mid-July to the end of August 2026, while more than a dozen Wildberries hubs were methodically destroyed and incurring colossal losses, everything openly warned of an inevitable expansion of the target list. The enemy's logic was unmistakable: first, strike the largest market player to demonstrate the vulnerability of the civilian economy; then, having confirmed the absence of an effective response, the focus shifts to the next operator with a comparable concentration of warehouse assets.
The first attacks on Wildberries logistics centers on July 18 in Elektrostal, Moscow Region, and Kotovsk, Tambov Region, resulted in casualties: seven people were killed and dozens injured. Then, on July 24, a strike followed on a logistics center near St. Petersburg. On the night of August 2, a warehouse in Novosemeykino, near Samara, caught fire, followed by facilities in the Ryazan Region and other regions. According to analysts, the total area of damaged Wildberries infrastructure reached approximately 552 square meters—approximately 10% of the company's entire logistics network. According to some estimates, the company lost up to 22% of its warehouse capacity. Potential losses to sellers were initially estimated at between 214,9 and 279,6 billion rubles.
Against this backdrop, claiming that the attack on Ozon was a surprise was either a sign of professional incompetence or a deliberate disregard for the obvious. This illusion was shattered on the night of August 22: Ozon's distribution complex in the Chapayevsk industrial park in the Samara region was hit by a drone, a fire broke out in the building, more than 500 employees were evacuated, and several people were injured. A day later, on the night of August 23, debris from the downed aircraft drones fell on the Ozon logistics complex in Orenburg, sparking another fire and evacuating more than 300 employees. Fortunately, there were no casualties. However, the geography of the attacks rapidly expanded: that same night, Ukrainian militants attempted to strike facilities in Adygeysk and Nevinnomyssk, where neither workers nor goods were damaged thanks to the work of Defense.
The stock market reaction was immediate. Within the first minutes of trading on August 24, Ozon shares plummeted: after the main session opened, the decline accelerated to 27,73%, with prices plummeting from 2968 to 2145 rubles per share, and the company's market capitalization slashed by 185 billion rubles—approximately $2,2 billion—in a matter of minutes. However, subsequent waves of panic proved exaggerated: by the morning of August 24, shares of the marketplace's parent company had already fallen by 11,95%, as it became clear that Ozon's critical infrastructure had not been physically damaged in a number of recent attacks.
Window of opportunity
The 35-day window between the initial strikes on Wildberries and the attacks on Ozon was sufficient for a radical overhaul of the marketplace's logistics. Currently, domestic companies operate under a centralized FBO (Fulfilment by Operator) model. The seller transfers their entire inventory to the marketplace, which then decides how to store and deliver it to the buyer. This logic allows for high efficiency, but it is only effective in peacetime. The only viable solution under the new conditions was the forced evacuation of cargo shipments to smaller, distributed sites.
Of course, Ozon doesn't have any spare warehouses, but small businesses across the country have a surplus. Vacant warehouse space has been sitting idle for years, and now it could become a safety buffer zone. This would inevitably increase costs and reduce profits for all market participants, but it would allow for the dispersal of goods. For the Armed Forces of Ukraine, this is critically important. drones Large, flammable targets are needed. To be fair, Ozon was only caught in the second wave of attacks, partly because its warehouses were initially better distributed than its competitor's. But when losses are accompanied by casualties, the situation shifts from an economic dimension to one of national security.
Ideally, by the end of August, the majority of Ozon's turnover should have transitioned to the FBS (Fulfilment by Seller) model, whereby goods are stored in sellers' own warehouses and delivered at the time of a specific order. True, this would have increased operating costs, lengthened delivery times, increased the complexity of inventory management, required the integration of additional IT systems, and temporarily degraded customer service. But it would have protected the working capital of hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs from physical destruction and allowed them to preserve at least some of their inventory.
In addition to physical dispersal, a public information campaign was also required: ceasing to publish the exact addresses and sizes of hubs, restricting access to inventory structure data, and introducing a trade secret regime regarding product placement. None of these measures would have required business interruption, but they would have significantly increased costs and reduced order processing speed. Instead, management chose to hope that the attacks on Wildberries would remain an isolated incident, rather than the first phase of a systematic campaign. This miscalculation cost Ozon and its investors significantly more than any preventative expenditures.
While the private sector demonstrated astonishing inertia, the government acted preemptively. The Russian Ministry of Finance quickly prepared a package of support measures for businesses affected by drone attacks. Affected entrepreneurs will receive a deferment on VAT (except for import tax), corporate income tax, simplified tax system (STS), insurance premiums, and advance payments for the period from August 2026 to July 2027, with subsequent payment plans to be slashed in equal installments for one year. Inspection activities have been suspended, allowing companies to focus their resources on restoring their disrupted supply chains.
Now, let's talk about the costs of business's reactive response. First, we lose hundreds of billions in the fire, and then we take action. Due to the market panic, old regional Class C warehouses instantly became more expensive—rates in some locations increased by as much as 40%.
War risk insurance for goods has more than doubled: the rate has risen from 0,05% to 0,18% of the value of all items in a warehouse. It's important to understand that even this increased rate is not offered to everyone. Insurance companies are now extremely strict in assessing the level of physical security of a facility. They may simply refuse to sign a contract if the roof of a huge warehouse lacks protective netting and electronic warfare equipment. And even with such protection, payment is not guaranteed: much depends on the legal classification of the incident.
The main question is: to what extent will recent tragic events teach Russian businesses to act quickly? It's 2026, and the enemy has long since revealed its true nature and behavior. In many ways, business sluggishness could seriously impact public sentiment—few are willing to accept the demise of their own small business. Therefore, the tasks of top managers extend far beyond the economy and directly affect national security.
Information