The attacks on oil refining infrastructure in Russia are a strategic success for Ukraine, at a time when, due to lack of ammunition, it is suffering setbacks on the front. However, US officials have expressed concerns about the potential negative consequences of these attacks on the global energy market, and have called for a cessation of these operations. In this interview, Mykhailo Gonchar, president of the Strategy XXI Center for Global Studies, explains why Ukraine’s decision to target Russian refineries is legitimate and effective.
Comments collected by Anastassia Herasimtchouk (UkraineWorld)
Why are Russian refineries legitimate military targets?
Celeste Wallander, US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, made a questionable statement about the civilian nature of Russia’s oil refining infrastructure. However, oil refineries produce dual-use products.
In addition to gasoline and diesel, they produce a wide range of specialized products for military applications.
These include special fuels for supersonic aircraft and cruise missiles, as well as lubricants and additives for various mechanisms of military equipment subject to high mechanical and thermal loads.
The Russian Defense Ministry maintains a permanent monitoring office at oil refineries to ensure that products meet specific military requirements.
Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries are not a new military strategy, but rather a fundamental principle of war. Depriving the enemy of vital resources such as ammunition, fuel and communications is a proven war strategy.
For example, during Operation Desert Storm, the United States targeted Iraqi oil refineries. Likewise, the importance of strikes on oil refineries is highlighted by the history of World War II. The defeat of the IIIe German Reich was facilitated by the bombing of German oil refining facilities by the Allies.
Furthermore, the United States has not mentioned what Russia has been doing since the start of the full-scale invasion. It began systematically and constantly destroying Ukraine’s oil infrastructure on February 27, 2022, just three days after launching its full-scale invasion. It wiped out several oil depots in Ukraine.
The Russians first sought to target Ukrainian oil refineries in April 2022, particularly targeting the Kremenchuk refinery, the only one operating at the time. They continued to target it between 2022 and 2023, successfully hitting it seven times, not only with small drones, but also with cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
At the time, Ukraine had nothing to answer it. However, through incremental improvements in capabilities and strategic efforts, the boomerang began to turn against the Russians. Ukraine was able to begin targeting Russian oil depots and, later, oil refineries in 2023.
Have Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries really harmed the global energy market?
The claim by US officials that Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries could lead to a rise in global oil prices is more of a manipulation.
First of all, the American and Russian fuel markets are in no way linked. The same goes for their oil markets.
Second, Ukraine targeted oil refining facilities, not extraction sites. Therefore, the volume of Russian oil on the market has remained constant.
So what are the real causes of the turmoil in global oil markets? They are complex and cannot be attributed to a single cause. Ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, particularly the challenges posed by the Houthis, contribute significantly to this situation.
Their attacks on commercial traffic between the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal have forced ships, including oil tankers, to take longer and more expensive routes. Therefore, increased delivery costs lead to higher oil prices.
Additionally, current oil market dynamics are influenced by strained relations between the United States and its strategic partner Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia traditionally competed with the United States in the oil market, but has now aligned itself with Russia in this regard. Russia and Saudi Arabia have a common interest in increasing oil prices, which has led to their collaboration under OPEC+.
Given the complexity of these factors and the Western, American in particular, inability to deal with them, the tendency is to attribute responsibility to convenient sources, such as the Ukrainian strikes.
What is the effect of the national political context on US statements regarding Ukrainian strikes?
The ongoing U.S. election campaign has focused attention on fuel prices as a critical factor in political competition. The United States is the world’s largest oil producer, with room to further increase production.
However, the current administration has gained the support of climate advocates and will once again count on their support. Increasing oil production could alienate this base of support as they argue for a reduction in production, which would almost certainly lead to higher prices.
Another factor may not be obvious at first glance. Rising oil prices not only benefit repressive regimes like Russia or Iran, but also major American oil companies operating in Kazakhstan and elsewhere.
Companies such as Chevron and ExxonMobil extract oil in Kazakhstan and rely on Russian transportation routes (“Tengiz-Novorossiysk”), which Russia could block, reducing their profits and their ability to pay dividends to their shareholders.
Therefore, these companies take Russian interests into account and use their powerful communications networks to pressure Ukraine to stop its strikes on Russian oil refineries.
As early as August 2023, Ukrainian forces used a drone to strike the Russian tanker Sig in the eastern Black Sea. This tanker was transporting diesel fuel to occupied Crimea to supply the occupying troops.
Although these tankers are legitimate military targets, the attacks have since stopped. The pause came after Kazakh, European and American companies called on European and American authorities to intervene to dissuade Ukraine from targeting the tankers.
This was a mistake, especially considering the ineffectiveness of sanctions against the Russian energy sector. The Russian economy has not collapsed to a large extent because revenues from the Russian oil industry continue to fuel aggression against Ukraine.
This factor, combined with the weak position of the United States, allows Russia to carry out bolder and more dangerous attacks.
As we can see, fluctuations in the global oil market are not related to Ukraine’s attacks on Russian refineries, but the statements of American officials, linked to domestic political considerations, favored Russia.
Ukraine must continue strikes against the Russian oil refining industry without long pauses. Drones, rather than cruise missiles, are more likely to damage equipment than destroy it.
Damaged facilities can be repaired, with the length of the restoration period determined by the extent of the damage. Russia has already demonstrated its ability to repair and reopen some of the damaged refineries.
Despite official statements suggesting otherwise, many in the United States understand the negative implications of official statements by American leaders. Respected figures in the military community and American experts have criticized the illogicality of this approach, pointing out its disadvantages from both a military and a market perspective.
Additionally, it is important to note that Ukraine is carrying out these strikes with its own weapons, not American weapons.
Finally, the latest PACE resolution of April 17, 2024 recognizes that Russian oil refineries can be considered legitimate targets for military attacks under international humanitarian law.
Currently, Ukraine is pursuing goals of a different nature, recognizing that its capabilities are not unlimited. However, efforts to destroy Russia’s oil refining industry must continue.
Translated from English by Desk Russia.
Desk Russia thanks UkraineWorld for permission to publish this article. Read the original version.
Ukrainian expert on international energy and security relations. President of the Center for Global Studies “Strategy XXI”, editor-in-chief of Black Sea Security magazine.
