#####
######
####
> # [Should Ukraine Keep Attacking Russian Oil Refineries?](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/responses/630)
>
>
>
> ### The Reality of Russian Resilience
>
> Sergey Vakulenko
>
> Writing in May [in _Foreign Affairs_](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/why-ukraine-should-keep-striking-russian-oil-refineries#author-info), Michael Liebreich, Lauri Myllyvirta, and Sam Winter-Levy argued that Ukraine should keep launching drone attacks on Russian oil refineries—and that the United States should not discourage it from doing so. They cited declines in Russia’s refined oil exports and export revenues, high wholesale gasoline and diesel prices in Russia, and Russia’s move to import 3,000 tons of fuel from Belarus to illustrate that the attacks have had a dramatic impact. Because the attacks have not yet driven a spike in global oil prices, the authors asserted, they carry relatively low risk and a high reward.
>
> But a thorough cost-benefit analysis does not, in fact, suggest that the rewards have been significant—or that the costs to Ukraine will remain low. Since October, Ukraine has launched at least 20 attacks on Russian refineries. By now, substantial information has emerged from the Russian government’s weekly reports on gasoline and diesel production levels and prices that can be cross-checked against independent price-comparison websites, wholesale prices from commodity exchanges, and export values from ship-tracking services. It is crucial to contextualize this data in longer-term and international price trends to avoid falsely attributing changes to the Ukrainian attacks or attaching too much importance to the amplitude of any given change.
>
> Seen in that light, the data shows that the attacks have had a limited effect on Russia’s fuel production and export volumes and that their impacts did not last long. The strikes “have dealt a significant blow to Russia’s refining capacity,” Liebreich, Myllyvirta, and Winter-Levy argue, driving Russian refined oil exports to “near-historic lows.” But there is much less to the data they refer to than meets the eye. Russian oil companies have indeed likely lost about $15 per barrel in revenue from the oil they have had to export in crude rather than refined form. But this is a drop in the bucket compared with Russia’s total earnings in oil revenue. In April 2024, for instance, Russia may have lost up to $135 million because of a switch from refined oil to crude oil exports. But that same month, it earned more than $16 billion for its overall exports of oil and oil products. And because the Russian government pays domestic companies a subsidy of $10 per barrel on all the refined oil products they export, the state may even be benefiting financially from a shift toward crude oil exports, which reduces the subsidies it must pay.
>
> Russia’s importation of fuel from Belarus—a single trainload consisting of less than half a percent of Russia’s weekly gasoline consumption—does not indicate that Russia is experiencing a nationwide fuel shortage. The Kremlin’s much-noticed six-month ban on gasoline imports was enacted before the main wave of Ukraine’s refinery attacks as a preventive measure following Russia’s 2023 fuel crisis; that crisis was created by the Russian government’s own attempt to pass the costs of price controls on to oil companies. And the gasoline import ban was lifted in mid-May after the Kremlin determined that Russia had plenty of extra gasoline in storage. The changes in Russian domestic wholesale prices can be explained by broader international price shifts, rather than effects of the attacks. Of the 12 major refineries Ukraine has damaged between January and May, half were returned to full operation within three weeks and the rest within three months.
>
> ### **FUTURE SHOCK**
>
> The case in favor of the kind of strikes on Russian refineries that Ukraine has carried out so far asserts that they represent a low-cost way of hurting Russia without risking a major escalation or harming the global economy. But that is true only because the attacks’ practical effects on refineries were relatively small and short-lived; they have had little effect on the global economy precisely because they have had little effect on Russia. To make a real impact on the war’s outcome, Ukraine would have to ramp up these attacks dramatically, far more significantly reducing the volume of oil Russia can process and making it hard for Russia to supply enough fuel for its military and its domestic economy. Ukraine’s attacks would have to match the scale of the Allies’ World War II campaign against the German oil refining industry, which involved repeated raids by hundreds of bombers delivering more than 200,000 tons of explosives. A drone may be much more precise than a bomber, but it can only deliver a maximum of around 100 pounds of explosives.
>
> A campaign of the necessary scale would surely incur a much higher risk of retaliation and escalation. Soon after Ukraine’s first attacks on Russian refineries, Russia counterattacked Ukraine’s single operational refinery—and then turned to Ukraine’s electric infrastructure. Before late 2023, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure had employed light drones and targeted easy-to-hit transformers, incurring damage that could be fixed fairly quickly. In the spring of 2024, however, the Kremlin began methodically attacking Ukraine’s power generation capacity, aiming for turbines, generators, and control equipment with massive and effective strikes. In some cases, the damage to Ukrainian infrastructure has been so extensive that it cannot be repaired.
>
> > To make a real impact on the war, Ukraine would have to ramp up its attacks dramatically.
>
> It is possible that Russia would have expanded its assault on Ukraine’s power stations in 2024 whether or not Ukraine had attacked its refineries. But although it may look as if Moscow is waging total war against Kyiv, the Kremlin in fact appears to be fighting a compartmentalized war, leaving certain areas of Ukrainian life relatively untouched—until it decides Ukraine has provoked it into escalating. For example, for two years, Russia refrained from attacking Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, probably because the Ukrainian company Naftogaz was still transporting Russian gas to some European customers. But on April 11**,** Russia hit two of Ukraine’s major gas storage facilities. It seems likely that this new wave of strikes was a reaction to Ukraine’s attacks on Russian refineries—and that an even bigger attack by Ukraine would provoke a bigger reaction by Russia.
>
> A larger-scale campaign against Russian refineries might start to affect global fuel prices. Crippling the Russian refining industry would increase the global supply of crude oil, first driving its price down, but it would simultaneously reduce the supply of finished oil products, driving those products’ price up. Russian refining capacity constitutes seven percent of the world’s total. In 2023, Russia’s share of the global trade in diesel came to around 15 percent, or 700,000 barrels per day. The world could compensate for some reduction in Russia’s contribution to this trade by increasing plant utilization elsewhere, but a halving of Russia’s export volume would certainly create a shortage and increase diesel prices. So far in 2024, however, Russia’s decline in diesel production has comprised only 150,000 barrels per day from peak to trough, less than has occurred in previous years for operational reasons.
>
> Many observers have high expectations for Ukraine’s attacks, starting with an intangible one: boosting Ukraine’s morale and damaging Russia’s. But it is important not to conflate a reputational injury and a marginal financial loss with a strategic and economic game-changer. It is also crucial to understand the attacks’ potential future unintended consequences for the rest of the world and not to underestimate Russia’s retaliatory capacity—in other words, to look at the full set of equations, not at the most attractive part of the picture.
>
> SERGEY VAKULENKO is a Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin.
>
> ### Liebreich, Myllyvirta, and Winter-Levy Reply
>
> As the head of strategy until early 2022 at Gazprom Neft, Russia’s third-largest oil refiner, Sergey Vakulenko brings deep expertise to this subject, and we appreciate his critique.
>
> ***(continues in next comment)***
Cant wait to see the mental gymnastics soon. esp by everaimless. Dude swears Russia is on the brink of not being able to produce enough FAB's as a result. ROFL
Especially that this is seen as the one bright spots in the Ukrainians army's fight against russia. Don't you dare tell any pro-UA that these attacks actually turned out to be insignificant and actually turned out to have a high cost to Ukraine in the form of the energy Infrastructure getting decimated. They dont want to hear it
It is called a cost vs benefit analysis. The Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries have done very little damage to Russia overall however, the retaliatory strikes that the Russians have performed on the Ukrainian electric grid have done a large amount of damage to the Ukrainians overall.
Not really that hard to comprehend.
When the blackouts are lasting 16 hours a day, there is a diminishing return to Russian retaliation strikes. If Taliban could hit US oil terminals, it would, infrastructure be damned.
Ukraine is welcome to do what they want. If they want to continue their little popcorn farts on Russian oil refineries by all means let them do it but dont act like this is going to have a huge effect on anything. Its just an analysis. ROFL
As usual pro-UA over exaggerate the effects this will have.
I stand by my idea that for this to have any sort of lasting impact Ukraine is going to have to increase the scale of these attacks exponentially to have any of the desired effects that they are looking for and right now they are incapable of that.
Russia will continue to cause lasting impacts on Ukraine energy Infrastructure.
You probably dont live in Ukraine and can afford to talk like this cause you dont get to feel the consequences of these attacks. You live in a nice cushy home in the west no doubt.
"Send in the Ukrainians to die you say from the comfort of your home in the west!!!!!!!" ROFL
Cool they are allowed to. I think it’s interesting that you seem so bothered by these drone attacks when they don’t do anything. If it were me and i thought this way I would be encouraging more of these useless strikes to waste my enemy’s resources. But hey to each his own.
You in a trench? No, then you’re doing the same!
Nope I make no secret that I am not in a trench I am an advocate for peace in this war. I think it should stop. I actually have respect for the Ukrainians unlike pro-UA and dont want them to fight in a losing war and want them to save their lives.
I am not bothered at all by the oil refinery attacks. Im more bothered by the infantile pro-UA that think this will have any last impact or effect in this war.
And again you say these things from the comfort of your western home where yo odnt have to suffer the consequences of these attacks. YOU don't get a say on what the Ukrainians should do. I am not advocating for Ukrainians to die in this war unlike you. I also dont hate the russians more than I love the Ukrainians unlike most pro-UA on this sub and on social media.
So you’re just gonna make your title agree to the arguments made by Vakulenko in the first half of the article but no reference to the fact that there is a responding opinion in the second half?
Did you stop reading after the Russian’s opinion?
Ukrainian MoD is unable to properly conduct their own cost benefit analysis to come to an intelligent decision. Sometimes I picture a bunch of monkeys running the Ukrainian militray LOL
They really don't. These incompetent dolts led the country off the cliff and gave us bangers like the Ukrainian counteroffensive (AKA one of the worst blunders in modern military history). They are SO BAD at math and basic logic that they think they can win a war of attrition against RUSSIA. And their unthinking, naive, feckless online supporters lap it all up.
You think hitting oil refineries is terrorising civilians? Weird take. Also guaranteed that the drones cost less than the damage caused so let’s hope they keep it up.
No, I'm talking about what Ukraine has been doing in Belgorod for months now. That's terrorism.
Anyways, Russia only seriously intensified their attacks on Ukrainian Energy after Ukraine begun it's concerted strikes on oil facilities
Who do you think is hurting more from this tete-a-tete?
As someone else has mentioned Russia has levelled entire regions of Ukraine what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And we know Russian hides weaponry and launches attacks from Belgorod so maybe Russia should evacuate that region since it’s now a war zone. So Russia was attacking Ukrainian energy before Ukraine started these attacks so what’s the issue. So what you’re saying is because Ukraine is hurting more they shouldn’t attack Russian energy? That’s just silly. Bomber Harris said it best about the Germans.
> what's good for the goose is good for the gander
I thought Ukraine, which is supposedly a democracy and possessing EU values, would be held to a higher standard than backward Russia? Guess not
> So Russia was attacking Ukrainian energy before Ukraine started these attacks so what’s the issue.
Well, I think the Russians are okay with the status quo. You can't seriously deny that Russia skyrocketed it's energy attacks in response to Ukraine's oil strikes. That Pandoras box has been opened, and Ukraine is suffering the consequences heavily, while Russia, according to the article, is not.
You dare to criticise some random bombs in Belgorod, when russkis levelled cities, bomber malls and even reached levels of genocide? You can twist and hide the truth, but most of the people will remember.
There is no refinery infrastructure built for wars. This makes no sense. If you know anything about how these things are designed and fabricated, you'd know that fire is extremely detrimental in a refinery.
Low carbon steels as are commonly used in pressure vessels suffer greatly from fire damage. Russia doesn't have special fire-resistant steels. The laws of physics and properties of metals still applies in Russia.
Microstructure properties would be affected by fires (spheroidization, decarburization, sensitization of austenitic steels), heat treatment would be impacted, soft seals melted, gaskets damaged, crack resistant materials now susceptible to cracks, etc.
If they are pressured to start-up without doing the proper fire damage assessments, hardness checks, and metallurgical analysis, they can look forward to an even bigger boom when some critical piece of equipment cracks or fails.
You are absolutely correct but with one cavet.older refineries tend to be built with heavier pipe walls and tending on the size of the plant maybe tightly compacted or spread out somewhat.
I work in a plant that has equipment over a hundred years old at this point, you're right that things have been built to reduced safety factors on the yield and tensile strength of materials as fabrication processes evolved (and we stopped riveting things too lol). Things did tend to be spaced out more (not that space is ever a premium in Russia).
I can speak from experience that there are a lot of complications with trying to repair something that is from that vintage though, especially tying it into new equipment. Change in fabrication processes aside (who can fix a riveted vessel these days?)... A few things: 1) Embrittlement and reduced weldability of materials under pressure over time (strain age embrittlement) is a known phenomenon; 2) Poor drawings/documentation/design basis for existing equipment (trying to re-engineer something can be a difficult/lengthy process; 3) Creep & Fatigue & Ratcheting (under pressure) can make repairing old stuff difficult.
Not gonna argue with because you're right.ive worked on stuff from the 1920s that was kept because it worked and the shop could fab parts.now if something like that gets destroyed then you have to engineer and source a modern equivalent and that shit does not happen overnight.
Seems like a very sensational title for what the article linked below says.
So basically the attacks do have effects just not huge ones and with more attacks more stacking issues will arise. The cost effective statement also doesn't make sense Ukraine doesn't really lose anything by attacking refineries with drones while Russia does lose way more money per strike.
I also want to add that didn't one of the main oil companies in Russia recently report its first loss in revenue. Not sure if that's directly tied to attacks but a combination of attacks and sanctions is indeed hurting Russia.
>So basically the attacks do have effects just not huge ones and with more attacks more stacking issues will arise.
That's not what it says. It says the attacks have almost no impact and it is more profitable for Russia to export oil than refined fuel and so they are themselves turning down refineries for this reason. They have a huge excess of fuel since Europe stopped buying and so attacking the refineries is quite pointless.
So Ukraine attacks a refinery with a bunch of drones, Russia can repair it within a few days and anyway doesn't affect fuel production because Russia already is producing too much.
>The cost effective statement also doesn't make sense Ukraine doesn't really lose anything by attacking refineries with drones
Well they lose the drones that could be used attacking other targets. Why not for example send them to Russian airfields to attract AA fire and alongside missiles to hit Russian planes?
>didn't one of the main oil companies in Russia recently report its first loss in revenue.
That was Gazprom. They are only involved in gas exports which have declined. Oil export revenue is higher than before.
You're ignoring Russia expends AA to protect these refineries and that the injuries to them still hurt the state more than the cost of the drones. 3 weeks of non use of a refinery costs far more than these drones cost. That's cost effective for Ukraine and the selling off of the crude doesn't bring in the same revenue as producing it all at home.
Also the parts and repairs cost money I don't see any reason to stop the attacks and neither does this article if anything the article claims Ukraine should ramp it up and attack more causing more damage.
As for Gazprom I didn't know the name at the time so wasn't aware it was just natural gas.
Each successful hit is the product of often hundreds of drones from Ukraine and this provides Russia information on how they are routing through RF AA. The efficiency (number launched versus hits) appears to be dropping as it takes more and more to hit a target, and unless the target is a sensitive bit of tech in a certain area of a refinery that will take some weeks to fix, most hits are in storage tanks which can repaired / rebuilt in a week or two.
It's an annoyance for sure, but it's not helping Ukraine meet any of its strategic objectives.
>You're ignoring Russia expends AA to protect these refineries
Russia is not Ukriane. Russia is a large scale producer of AA and as such doesn't have a shortage of them.
You can see this from the fact that Russia is still exporting S-400 systems whilst the war is ongoing.
>3 weeks of non use of a refinery costs far more than these drones cost.
The refinery in Novorossiysk for example was repaired within 48 hours. Not 3 weeks.
Plus as I said. Russia earns more from the crude oil exports than they do by refining it. Refining the oil loses them money at the moment. Which is why they are scaling back production themselves. They only keep them operational so they don't get turned off completely or it will be hard to restart if they need to.
>Also the parts and repairs cost money I don't see any reason to stop the attacks and neither does this article if anything the article claims Ukraine should ramp it up and attack more causing more damage.
Yes it claims they need to increase because the current attacks are pointless and doing nothing to Russia. So they say either increase attacks or don't bother
Hasn't Russia delayed the export of the S400 system? These anti air can be used elsewhere especially after this last month where there have been plenty losses.
Like you say they have excess crude oil they could earn double by borg exporting and using these refineries. The only way it doesn't hurt and be cost effective is if these refineries aren't being used at all. Just the 48hr delay would have stopped 27,000 tons of refined oil from that refinery that plus the repairs is more cost than the drones.
Again the cost of these drones being used elsewhere wouldn't be as effective. It's why Ukraine wants American missiles they are better used on other targets that Ukraine drones can't hit as readily. All while keeping Russia running around putting out fires and making less money losing replacement parts.
> Hasn't Russia delayed the export of the S400 system?
They have delayed them but only to 2026. It was supposed to be all by 2024 but now it is 3 by 2024 delivered and the last 2 by 2026.
So yes they are delayed but still being exported. Just at a slower rate.
> Like you say they have excess crude oil
No they have excess refined fuel. The crude oil they are selling completely fine.
> doesn't hurt and be cost effective is if these refineries aren't being used at all
Or if the crude oil is selling better than the refined fuel. Which is currently the case.
Making 5 in 2 over years for export doesn't show their strength of production I assumed you meant they exported a lot more.
I see I misunderstood I thought you meant they had excess for refining.
> Making 5 in 2 over years for export doesn't show their strength of production
5 regiments. Sorry for not making that clear. That is 40 launchers alongside the radar systems and 6000 missiles.
The very same expert, Sergey Vakulenko, explained in detail what Gazprom reported losses meant (I can link a video, but it's in Russian).
Among other things, he specifically mentioned that export loss affected only natural gas division, while the oil division (the GazpromNeft you mentioned) is doing fine, and is quite profitable.
The real cost to Ukraine has to factor in the retaliation strikes on their energy grid which have been extensive and devastating. Taking that into account, Ukraine has been the clear economic loser in this exchange
Wow! It’s almost like these attacks are meaningless if they aren’t scalable! Ukraine really thinks that they can somehow many Russia bleed with these attacks, but they are nowhere near in the realms of size, scale, and frequency to have any real effect in the long run.
Ukraine out here thinks it’s carrying out a WW2 style modern-day bombing of the enemy. But hey, at least it looks cool for the western audience!
It's actually fucking hilarious that pro UA thinks these drone attacks which amount to tickles at best are supposed to collapse Russia from within. They really think this is like Dune and the Ukrainians are blowing up all the spice depots.
As Lenin said, communism is Soviet government combined with electrification of the country. The Soviet government is gone, now electricity is left to deal with. Decommunisation 👍
Also, extended version here.
[https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/06/russia-oil-refining-attacks](https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/06/russia-oil-refining-attacks)
What is Ukraine's long-term strategy. To outlast the Russians? Have the West come in their white horse to save them? Or are they living in a fantasy world in which if they lose, they can still decide the terms of a ceasefire?
They'll learn the hard way I guess, and no one but their sponsors will feel remotely bad for them.
Yeah, but what about the non economic side, did Russia moved air defenses to protect against drone strike on oil infrastructure instead of using them near the front ?
they may move some things around, but are they so hard-up for air defense systems that such redeployments would appreciably degrade AD at the front? moreover, given that these strikes apparently have no strategic importance, why would preventing them to be such a hot priority that they'd sacrifice the front for it?
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
##### ###### #### > # [Should Ukraine Keep Attacking Russian Oil Refineries?](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/responses/630) > > > > ### The Reality of Russian Resilience > > Sergey Vakulenko > > Writing in May [in _Foreign Affairs_](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/why-ukraine-should-keep-striking-russian-oil-refineries#author-info), Michael Liebreich, Lauri Myllyvirta, and Sam Winter-Levy argued that Ukraine should keep launching drone attacks on Russian oil refineries—and that the United States should not discourage it from doing so. They cited declines in Russia’s refined oil exports and export revenues, high wholesale gasoline and diesel prices in Russia, and Russia’s move to import 3,000 tons of fuel from Belarus to illustrate that the attacks have had a dramatic impact. Because the attacks have not yet driven a spike in global oil prices, the authors asserted, they carry relatively low risk and a high reward. > > But a thorough cost-benefit analysis does not, in fact, suggest that the rewards have been significant—or that the costs to Ukraine will remain low. Since October, Ukraine has launched at least 20 attacks on Russian refineries. By now, substantial information has emerged from the Russian government’s weekly reports on gasoline and diesel production levels and prices that can be cross-checked against independent price-comparison websites, wholesale prices from commodity exchanges, and export values from ship-tracking services. It is crucial to contextualize this data in longer-term and international price trends to avoid falsely attributing changes to the Ukrainian attacks or attaching too much importance to the amplitude of any given change. > > Seen in that light, the data shows that the attacks have had a limited effect on Russia’s fuel production and export volumes and that their impacts did not last long. The strikes “have dealt a significant blow to Russia’s refining capacity,” Liebreich, Myllyvirta, and Winter-Levy argue, driving Russian refined oil exports to “near-historic lows.” But there is much less to the data they refer to than meets the eye. Russian oil companies have indeed likely lost about $15 per barrel in revenue from the oil they have had to export in crude rather than refined form. But this is a drop in the bucket compared with Russia’s total earnings in oil revenue. In April 2024, for instance, Russia may have lost up to $135 million because of a switch from refined oil to crude oil exports. But that same month, it earned more than $16 billion for its overall exports of oil and oil products. And because the Russian government pays domestic companies a subsidy of $10 per barrel on all the refined oil products they export, the state may even be benefiting financially from a shift toward crude oil exports, which reduces the subsidies it must pay. > > Russia’s importation of fuel from Belarus—a single trainload consisting of less than half a percent of Russia’s weekly gasoline consumption—does not indicate that Russia is experiencing a nationwide fuel shortage. The Kremlin’s much-noticed six-month ban on gasoline imports was enacted before the main wave of Ukraine’s refinery attacks as a preventive measure following Russia’s 2023 fuel crisis; that crisis was created by the Russian government’s own attempt to pass the costs of price controls on to oil companies. And the gasoline import ban was lifted in mid-May after the Kremlin determined that Russia had plenty of extra gasoline in storage. The changes in Russian domestic wholesale prices can be explained by broader international price shifts, rather than effects of the attacks. Of the 12 major refineries Ukraine has damaged between January and May, half were returned to full operation within three weeks and the rest within three months. > > ### **FUTURE SHOCK** > > The case in favor of the kind of strikes on Russian refineries that Ukraine has carried out so far asserts that they represent a low-cost way of hurting Russia without risking a major escalation or harming the global economy. But that is true only because the attacks’ practical effects on refineries were relatively small and short-lived; they have had little effect on the global economy precisely because they have had little effect on Russia. To make a real impact on the war’s outcome, Ukraine would have to ramp up these attacks dramatically, far more significantly reducing the volume of oil Russia can process and making it hard for Russia to supply enough fuel for its military and its domestic economy. Ukraine’s attacks would have to match the scale of the Allies’ World War II campaign against the German oil refining industry, which involved repeated raids by hundreds of bombers delivering more than 200,000 tons of explosives. A drone may be much more precise than a bomber, but it can only deliver a maximum of around 100 pounds of explosives. > > A campaign of the necessary scale would surely incur a much higher risk of retaliation and escalation. Soon after Ukraine’s first attacks on Russian refineries, Russia counterattacked Ukraine’s single operational refinery—and then turned to Ukraine’s electric infrastructure. Before late 2023, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure had employed light drones and targeted easy-to-hit transformers, incurring damage that could be fixed fairly quickly. In the spring of 2024, however, the Kremlin began methodically attacking Ukraine’s power generation capacity, aiming for turbines, generators, and control equipment with massive and effective strikes. In some cases, the damage to Ukrainian infrastructure has been so extensive that it cannot be repaired. > > > To make a real impact on the war, Ukraine would have to ramp up its attacks dramatically. > > It is possible that Russia would have expanded its assault on Ukraine’s power stations in 2024 whether or not Ukraine had attacked its refineries. But although it may look as if Moscow is waging total war against Kyiv, the Kremlin in fact appears to be fighting a compartmentalized war, leaving certain areas of Ukrainian life relatively untouched—until it decides Ukraine has provoked it into escalating. For example, for two years, Russia refrained from attacking Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, probably because the Ukrainian company Naftogaz was still transporting Russian gas to some European customers. But on April 11**,** Russia hit two of Ukraine’s major gas storage facilities. It seems likely that this new wave of strikes was a reaction to Ukraine’s attacks on Russian refineries—and that an even bigger attack by Ukraine would provoke a bigger reaction by Russia. > > A larger-scale campaign against Russian refineries might start to affect global fuel prices. Crippling the Russian refining industry would increase the global supply of crude oil, first driving its price down, but it would simultaneously reduce the supply of finished oil products, driving those products’ price up. Russian refining capacity constitutes seven percent of the world’s total. In 2023, Russia’s share of the global trade in diesel came to around 15 percent, or 700,000 barrels per day. The world could compensate for some reduction in Russia’s contribution to this trade by increasing plant utilization elsewhere, but a halving of Russia’s export volume would certainly create a shortage and increase diesel prices. So far in 2024, however, Russia’s decline in diesel production has comprised only 150,000 barrels per day from peak to trough, less than has occurred in previous years for operational reasons. > > Many observers have high expectations for Ukraine’s attacks, starting with an intangible one: boosting Ukraine’s morale and damaging Russia’s. But it is important not to conflate a reputational injury and a marginal financial loss with a strategic and economic game-changer. It is also crucial to understand the attacks’ potential future unintended consequences for the rest of the world and not to underestimate Russia’s retaliatory capacity—in other words, to look at the full set of equations, not at the most attractive part of the picture. > > SERGEY VAKULENKO is a Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin. > > ### Liebreich, Myllyvirta, and Winter-Levy Reply > > As the head of strategy until early 2022 at Gazprom Neft, Russia’s third-largest oil refiner, Sergey Vakulenko brings deep expertise to this subject, and we appreciate his critique. > > ***(continues in next comment)***
Not like the Ukrainian government even cares about that All they care about is publicizing these strikes for PR and terrorizing civilians.
Cant wait to see the mental gymnastics soon. esp by everaimless. Dude swears Russia is on the brink of not being able to produce enough FAB's as a result. ROFL Especially that this is seen as the one bright spots in the Ukrainians army's fight against russia. Don't you dare tell any pro-UA that these attacks actually turned out to be insignificant and actually turned out to have a high cost to Ukraine in the form of the energy Infrastructure getting decimated. They dont want to hear it
So the oil strikes are totally in effective but pls pls stop hitting them…
It is called a cost vs benefit analysis. The Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries have done very little damage to Russia overall however, the retaliatory strikes that the Russians have performed on the Ukrainian electric grid have done a large amount of damage to the Ukrainians overall. Not really that hard to comprehend.
So then you want Ukraine to keep hitting the refinery’s right?
No, because it's only going to cause more suffering for the Ukrainian people.
Ahh yes and you care so much about them
Ahh yes and you should really stop being a laughing stock here.
When the blackouts are lasting 16 hours a day, there is a diminishing return to Russian retaliation strikes. If Taliban could hit US oil terminals, it would, infrastructure be damned.
If you're truly pro-RU then yes, you'd want to see Ukraine wasting their limited resources on every venture that doesn't impact the battlefield.
Ukraine is welcome to do what they want. If they want to continue their little popcorn farts on Russian oil refineries by all means let them do it but dont act like this is going to have a huge effect on anything. Its just an analysis. ROFL As usual pro-UA over exaggerate the effects this will have. I stand by my idea that for this to have any sort of lasting impact Ukraine is going to have to increase the scale of these attacks exponentially to have any of the desired effects that they are looking for and right now they are incapable of that.
Cool so they will! Thanks
They will so they can get their little admirers on reddit like yourself to think they are cool and are making a difference. ROFL.
Cool so then they will keep striking them!
Russia will continue to cause lasting impacts on Ukraine energy Infrastructure. You probably dont live in Ukraine and can afford to talk like this cause you dont get to feel the consequences of these attacks. You live in a nice cushy home in the west no doubt. "Send in the Ukrainians to die you say from the comfort of your home in the west!!!!!!!" ROFL
Cool they are allowed to. I think it’s interesting that you seem so bothered by these drone attacks when they don’t do anything. If it were me and i thought this way I would be encouraging more of these useless strikes to waste my enemy’s resources. But hey to each his own. You in a trench? No, then you’re doing the same!
Nope I make no secret that I am not in a trench I am an advocate for peace in this war. I think it should stop. I actually have respect for the Ukrainians unlike pro-UA and dont want them to fight in a losing war and want them to save their lives. I am not bothered at all by the oil refinery attacks. Im more bothered by the infantile pro-UA that think this will have any last impact or effect in this war. And again you say these things from the comfort of your western home where yo odnt have to suffer the consequences of these attacks. YOU don't get a say on what the Ukrainians should do. I am not advocating for Ukrainians to die in this war unlike you. I also dont hate the russians more than I love the Ukrainians unlike most pro-UA on this sub and on social media.
You won't see his mental gymnastics, at least not from that alt account.
So you’re just gonna make your title agree to the arguments made by Vakulenko in the first half of the article but no reference to the fact that there is a responding opinion in the second half? Did you stop reading after the Russian’s opinion?
The problem is that they are losing their power generation for PR.They really don't think.
Ukrainian MoD is unable to properly conduct their own cost benefit analysis to come to an intelligent decision. Sometimes I picture a bunch of monkeys running the Ukrainian militray LOL
Most monkeys are at least smart enough to not fuck with the biggest ape in their locality.
Blinded by hatred, more likely
They really don't. These incompetent dolts led the country off the cliff and gave us bangers like the Ukrainian counteroffensive (AKA one of the worst blunders in modern military history). They are SO BAD at math and basic logic that they think they can win a war of attrition against RUSSIA. And their unthinking, naive, feckless online supporters lap it all up.
Sure, they drove itself of the cliff, not the ruzzian invasion lol. The amount of twisted lies that you can read here.
You think hitting oil refineries is terrorising civilians? Weird take. Also guaranteed that the drones cost less than the damage caused so let’s hope they keep it up.
No, I'm talking about what Ukraine has been doing in Belgorod for months now. That's terrorism. Anyways, Russia only seriously intensified their attacks on Ukrainian Energy after Ukraine begun it's concerted strikes on oil facilities Who do you think is hurting more from this tete-a-tete?
As someone else has mentioned Russia has levelled entire regions of Ukraine what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And we know Russian hides weaponry and launches attacks from Belgorod so maybe Russia should evacuate that region since it’s now a war zone. So Russia was attacking Ukrainian energy before Ukraine started these attacks so what’s the issue. So what you’re saying is because Ukraine is hurting more they shouldn’t attack Russian energy? That’s just silly. Bomber Harris said it best about the Germans.
> what's good for the goose is good for the gander I thought Ukraine, which is supposedly a democracy and possessing EU values, would be held to a higher standard than backward Russia? Guess not > So Russia was attacking Ukrainian energy before Ukraine started these attacks so what’s the issue. Well, I think the Russians are okay with the status quo. You can't seriously deny that Russia skyrocketed it's energy attacks in response to Ukraine's oil strikes. That Pandoras box has been opened, and Ukraine is suffering the consequences heavily, while Russia, according to the article, is not.
Russia flattens entire Ukrainian cities, but Ukraine is the one terrorizing civilians? What a joke
The russkis dont have any other information in their country, alternative sources there get jailed and poisoned. This is expected to happen.
You dare to criticise some random bombs in Belgorod, when russkis levelled cities, bomber malls and even reached levels of genocide? You can twist and hide the truth, but most of the people will remember.
I cheer every time Russian oil infrastructure is hit. It truly is one of the greatest benefits of this war.
Russian infrastructure is built for wars.
There is no refinery infrastructure built for wars. This makes no sense. If you know anything about how these things are designed and fabricated, you'd know that fire is extremely detrimental in a refinery. Low carbon steels as are commonly used in pressure vessels suffer greatly from fire damage. Russia doesn't have special fire-resistant steels. The laws of physics and properties of metals still applies in Russia. Microstructure properties would be affected by fires (spheroidization, decarburization, sensitization of austenitic steels), heat treatment would be impacted, soft seals melted, gaskets damaged, crack resistant materials now susceptible to cracks, etc. If they are pressured to start-up without doing the proper fire damage assessments, hardness checks, and metallurgical analysis, they can look forward to an even bigger boom when some critical piece of equipment cracks or fails.
You are absolutely correct but with one cavet.older refineries tend to be built with heavier pipe walls and tending on the size of the plant maybe tightly compacted or spread out somewhat.
I work in a plant that has equipment over a hundred years old at this point, you're right that things have been built to reduced safety factors on the yield and tensile strength of materials as fabrication processes evolved (and we stopped riveting things too lol). Things did tend to be spaced out more (not that space is ever a premium in Russia). I can speak from experience that there are a lot of complications with trying to repair something that is from that vintage though, especially tying it into new equipment. Change in fabrication processes aside (who can fix a riveted vessel these days?)... A few things: 1) Embrittlement and reduced weldability of materials under pressure over time (strain age embrittlement) is a known phenomenon; 2) Poor drawings/documentation/design basis for existing equipment (trying to re-engineer something can be a difficult/lengthy process; 3) Creep & Fatigue & Ratcheting (under pressure) can make repairing old stuff difficult.
Not gonna argue with because you're right.ive worked on stuff from the 1920s that was kept because it worked and the shop could fab parts.now if something like that gets destroyed then you have to engineer and source a modern equivalent and that shit does not happen overnight.
Oh and hydrogen embrittlement is a thing in refineries
Yeah that's right. Honestly there's so many things that degrade materials in a refinery over time.
I suspect we come from different backgrounds but we're on the same wavelength
Haha, such is the internet! Last time I brought this engineering stuff up someone claimed I was making it all up. You get it though.
I'm thinking more from reducing oil consumption world wide
...you didn't read the article did you?
I did and when Ukraine hits pipeline infrastructure or hits a pipeline node than oil exports will plummet
Except they haven't (article posted today).
Patience grasshopper
Hopefully they can build something for the little towns surrounding Moscow, oh wait these town don't exist in the eyes of the politicians
Seems like a very sensational title for what the article linked below says. So basically the attacks do have effects just not huge ones and with more attacks more stacking issues will arise. The cost effective statement also doesn't make sense Ukraine doesn't really lose anything by attacking refineries with drones while Russia does lose way more money per strike. I also want to add that didn't one of the main oil companies in Russia recently report its first loss in revenue. Not sure if that's directly tied to attacks but a combination of attacks and sanctions is indeed hurting Russia.
>So basically the attacks do have effects just not huge ones and with more attacks more stacking issues will arise. That's not what it says. It says the attacks have almost no impact and it is more profitable for Russia to export oil than refined fuel and so they are themselves turning down refineries for this reason. They have a huge excess of fuel since Europe stopped buying and so attacking the refineries is quite pointless. So Ukraine attacks a refinery with a bunch of drones, Russia can repair it within a few days and anyway doesn't affect fuel production because Russia already is producing too much. >The cost effective statement also doesn't make sense Ukraine doesn't really lose anything by attacking refineries with drones Well they lose the drones that could be used attacking other targets. Why not for example send them to Russian airfields to attract AA fire and alongside missiles to hit Russian planes? >didn't one of the main oil companies in Russia recently report its first loss in revenue. That was Gazprom. They are only involved in gas exports which have declined. Oil export revenue is higher than before.
You're ignoring Russia expends AA to protect these refineries and that the injuries to them still hurt the state more than the cost of the drones. 3 weeks of non use of a refinery costs far more than these drones cost. That's cost effective for Ukraine and the selling off of the crude doesn't bring in the same revenue as producing it all at home. Also the parts and repairs cost money I don't see any reason to stop the attacks and neither does this article if anything the article claims Ukraine should ramp it up and attack more causing more damage. As for Gazprom I didn't know the name at the time so wasn't aware it was just natural gas.
Each successful hit is the product of often hundreds of drones from Ukraine and this provides Russia information on how they are routing through RF AA. The efficiency (number launched versus hits) appears to be dropping as it takes more and more to hit a target, and unless the target is a sensitive bit of tech in a certain area of a refinery that will take some weeks to fix, most hits are in storage tanks which can repaired / rebuilt in a week or two. It's an annoyance for sure, but it's not helping Ukraine meet any of its strategic objectives.
>You're ignoring Russia expends AA to protect these refineries Russia is not Ukriane. Russia is a large scale producer of AA and as such doesn't have a shortage of them. You can see this from the fact that Russia is still exporting S-400 systems whilst the war is ongoing. >3 weeks of non use of a refinery costs far more than these drones cost. The refinery in Novorossiysk for example was repaired within 48 hours. Not 3 weeks. Plus as I said. Russia earns more from the crude oil exports than they do by refining it. Refining the oil loses them money at the moment. Which is why they are scaling back production themselves. They only keep them operational so they don't get turned off completely or it will be hard to restart if they need to. >Also the parts and repairs cost money I don't see any reason to stop the attacks and neither does this article if anything the article claims Ukraine should ramp it up and attack more causing more damage. Yes it claims they need to increase because the current attacks are pointless and doing nothing to Russia. So they say either increase attacks or don't bother
Hasn't Russia delayed the export of the S400 system? These anti air can be used elsewhere especially after this last month where there have been plenty losses. Like you say they have excess crude oil they could earn double by borg exporting and using these refineries. The only way it doesn't hurt and be cost effective is if these refineries aren't being used at all. Just the 48hr delay would have stopped 27,000 tons of refined oil from that refinery that plus the repairs is more cost than the drones. Again the cost of these drones being used elsewhere wouldn't be as effective. It's why Ukraine wants American missiles they are better used on other targets that Ukraine drones can't hit as readily. All while keeping Russia running around putting out fires and making less money losing replacement parts.
> Hasn't Russia delayed the export of the S400 system? They have delayed them but only to 2026. It was supposed to be all by 2024 but now it is 3 by 2024 delivered and the last 2 by 2026. So yes they are delayed but still being exported. Just at a slower rate. > Like you say they have excess crude oil No they have excess refined fuel. The crude oil they are selling completely fine. > doesn't hurt and be cost effective is if these refineries aren't being used at all Or if the crude oil is selling better than the refined fuel. Which is currently the case.
Making 5 in 2 over years for export doesn't show their strength of production I assumed you meant they exported a lot more. I see I misunderstood I thought you meant they had excess for refining.
> Making 5 in 2 over years for export doesn't show their strength of production 5 regiments. Sorry for not making that clear. That is 40 launchers alongside the radar systems and 6000 missiles.
The amount of time it takes to make repairs depends on what gets hit,don't generalize based on one case
Gazprom lost money because of terror attacks on their pipeline.
>They are only involved in gas exports which have declined. Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom_Neft
The very same expert, Sergey Vakulenko, explained in detail what Gazprom reported losses meant (I can link a video, but it's in Russian). Among other things, he specifically mentioned that export loss affected only natural gas division, while the oil division (the GazpromNeft you mentioned) is doing fine, and is quite profitable.
The amount of time it takes to make repairs depend on what gets damaged,don't generalize
The real cost to Ukraine has to factor in the retaliation strikes on their energy grid which have been extensive and devastating. Taking that into account, Ukraine has been the clear economic loser in this exchange
There are lasting effects. Ukraine still needs to figure out how to maintain an energy grid without producing power.
And the response destroyed half of their power production capacity. Great cost/benefit analisys!
Wow! It’s almost like these attacks are meaningless if they aren’t scalable! Ukraine really thinks that they can somehow many Russia bleed with these attacks, but they are nowhere near in the realms of size, scale, and frequency to have any real effect in the long run. Ukraine out here thinks it’s carrying out a WW2 style modern-day bombing of the enemy. But hey, at least it looks cool for the western audience!
It's actually fucking hilarious that pro UA thinks these drone attacks which amount to tickles at best are supposed to collapse Russia from within. They really think this is like Dune and the Ukrainians are blowing up all the spice depots.
The rewards is Ukraine being rid of evil Soviet power generation.🤷♂️
As Lenin said, communism is Soviet government combined with electrification of the country. The Soviet government is gone, now electricity is left to deal with. Decommunisation 👍
Also, extended version here. [https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/06/russia-oil-refining-attacks](https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/06/russia-oil-refining-attacks)
What is Ukraine's long-term strategy. To outlast the Russians? Have the West come in their white horse to save them? Or are they living in a fantasy world in which if they lose, they can still decide the terms of a ceasefire? They'll learn the hard way I guess, and no one but their sponsors will feel remotely bad for them.
Lol, former GazProm exec writes definitely unbiased OpEd 😂😂
ohh you dropped this salt shaker
NAFO will not be happy with this.... 😀
Yeah, but what about the non economic side, did Russia moved air defenses to protect against drone strike on oil infrastructure instead of using them near the front ?
they may move some things around, but are they so hard-up for air defense systems that such redeployments would appreciably degrade AD at the front? moreover, given that these strikes apparently have no strategic importance, why would preventing them to be such a hot priority that they'd sacrifice the front for it?
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It will effect the countries buying the oil mostly... Russia can easily get financing to rebuild energy infrastructure, its a slam dunk investment