UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military


SVO - Target Russian Energy

By October 2025 the gasoline shortage was becoming a systemic crisis. The Russian economy had never faced a situation like this under Putin. Economies can’t cope with the loss of the most important input for systems that operate "«just-in-time" — fuel. Moscow's fossil fuel infrastructure was much less resilient in wartime when key bottlenecks and highly centralized vital outputs were viable targets for the enemy. Everyone was queuing up for fuel, and transport costs exploded in a very large country where transport had often contributed as much as 10-20% of the end cost of a good delivered to a consumer, far higher than in Europe.

The systematic Ukrainian campaign against Russian energy infrastructure represents one of the most significant strategic developments in the ongoing conflict, yet characterizing these operations as a panacea for Ukraine's military challenges fundamentally misunderstands both their potential and limitations. While these strikes have demonstrated Ukraine's growing long-range strike capabilities and imposed genuine economic costs on Russia, they exist within a complex web of strategic, economic, and political constraints that prevent them from serving as a silver bullet solution to the war.

Ukraine's targeting of Russian refineries, oil depots, power plants, and electrical infrastructure has evolved from opportunistic strikes into a sustained campaign aimed at degrading Russia's war-making capacity while simultaneously eroding domestic Russian support for the conflict. The logic appears straightforward: Russia's energy sector generates the revenue funding its military operations, and disrupting this economic engine should theoretically constrain Moscow's ability to sustain its invasion. Additionally, bringing the war's consequences to Russian civilians through power outages and fuel shortages might theoretically weaken public support for continued aggression. These strikes also force Russia to divert air defense systems and resources toward protecting vast industrial infrastructure spread across enormous distances, potentially reducing the density of air defenses protecting military targets or front-line positions.

The tactical execution of these strikes has showcased impressive Ukrainian innovation and adaptability. Long-range drones, some reportedly capable of traveling over a thousand kilometers, have struck targets deep inside Russian territory, demonstrating vulnerabilities in Russian air defense coverage. Ukraine has targeted critical bottlenecks in Russia's energy infrastructure, including refineries that process crude oil into usable products, electrical substations that connect power grids, and storage facilities that buffer supply chains. Some strikes have caused fires lasting days and forced temporary shutdowns of processing capacity. The psychological impact of these operations extends beyond immediate physical damage, creating a sense of vulnerability within Russia itself and demonstrating that Ukraine retains offensive capabilities despite being on the strategic defensive in much of the ground war.

However, the structural realities of Russia's energy sector and global petroleum markets severely limit the strategic impact of these operations. Russia's oil and gas infrastructure possesses enormous redundancy and geographic dispersion, making comprehensive disruption extraordinarily difficult. Damaged refineries can often redirect crude oil to undamaged facilities, and Russia's vast pipeline network provides multiple alternative routes for exports. The global nature of energy markets means that even significant reductions in Russian refining capacity may not translate directly into proportional revenue losses, as Russia can export crude oil instead of refined products, often at only marginally reduced prices. International buyers, particularly in Asia, have proven willing to purchase Russian energy despite Western sanctions, providing Moscow with continued revenue streams that sustain its war effort.

The economic calculus grows more complicated when examining the actual financial impact on Russia's ability to fund military operations. Russia's defense spending, while enormous, represents only a portion of its total energy revenue. Even substantial percentage reductions in energy income may not immediately translate into critical military shortfalls, particularly given Russia's ability to reallocate domestic spending, draw on financial reserves, and maintain deficit spending. The Russian economy has demonstrated more resilience to wartime disruption than many Western analysts initially predicted, adapting to sanctions through import substitution, currency controls, and trade reorientation toward non-Western partners. Energy strikes must be sustained over extended periods to create cumulative effects that genuinely constrain military procurement and operations, requiring resources and capabilities that strain Ukraine's own limited stocks of long-range weapons.

The military opportunity costs of focusing on energy infrastructure deserve careful consideration. Every long-range strike asset used against a refinery or power plant represents a weapon not used against Russian command posts, ammunition depots, airfields, or troop concentrations that might have more immediate battlefield effects. Ukrainian forces facing intense pressure along multiple front-line sectors require close air support, artillery suppression, and interdiction of Russian logistics that directly support ongoing combat operations. The strategic debate within Ukrainian military and political circles reflects this tension between immediate tactical needs and longer-term strategic attrition of Russian capabilities. Prioritizing energy infrastructure assumes Ukraine can sustain the current tactical situation long enough for cumulative economic pressure to alter Russian strategic calculations, an assumption that may prove optimistic given the intensity of Russian offensive operations.

International political dimensions further complicate the energy targeting campaign. Ukraine relies heavily on Western military aid, intelligence support, and political backing, and some of these Western partners have expressed concern about strikes that might escalate the conflict, affect global energy markets, or complicate diplomatic efforts. While the United States and European allies have generally supported Ukrainian strikes within Russian territory, particularly after Russia's escalated attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, there remains sensitivity about operations that could trigger broader escalation or create energy price shocks that harm Western economies. Ukraine must navigate these concerns while pursuing operations it considers militarily necessary, creating constraints on targeting selection, operational timing, and public messaging about the campaign.

The Russian response to energy infrastructure strikes has involved both defensive and offensive adaptations that reduce Ukrainian effectiveness over time. Russia has reinforced air defenses around critical energy facilities, making subsequent strikes more difficult and costly. Russian electronic warfare capabilities have improved interception rates against Ukrainian drones. Moscow has also responded with intensified strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, creating a destructive equilibrium where both sides damage the other's electrical grids and fuel supplies without achieving decisive advantage. This tit-for-tat dynamic risks leaving both nations with degraded energy infrastructure heading into future winters, with Ukrainian civilians potentially suffering more due to their country's smaller size and more limited redundancy in power generation.

The temporal dimension of energy strikes reveals another fundamental limitation. Energy infrastructure, while expensive and time-consuming to build initially, can often be repaired more quickly than completely destroyed. Refineries hit by drones may experience weeks or months of reduced capacity rather than permanent elimination. Electrical infrastructure damaged in strikes can be patched, rerouted, or temporarily bypassed. Russia's enormous industrial base and access to global supply chains through non-Western partners provides repair capabilities that limit the permanence of Ukrainian strikes. This creates a requirement for repeated strikes against the same targets to maintain pressure, further straining Ukraine's limited inventory of long-range weapons and creating diminishing returns as Russian defenses improve.

The broader strategic question concerns whether energy infrastructure strikes can fundamentally alter Russian decision-making about the war. Historical examples suggest that strategic bombing campaigns, even those causing substantial economic damage, rarely force major powers to abandon strategic objectives they consider vital. Russia views Ukraine within its sphere of influence as a matter of national security, and the regime has demonstrated willingness to absorb enormous costs in pursuit of its objectives. Russian domestic propaganda has successfully framed the conflict as an existential struggle against Western encroachment, creating political resilience against economic hardship. The authoritarian nature of the Russian political system insulates leadership from public discontent more effectively than democratic accountability would. Energy strikes might contribute to long-term erosion of Russian capabilities and willingness to continue fighting, but they seem unlikely to force a near-term Russian decision to withdraw or negotiate on terms acceptable to Ukraine.

The ultimate assessment of Ukrainian energy strikes must acknowledge both their genuine achievements and inherent limitations. These operations demonstrate Ukrainian military innovation, impose real costs on Russia, complicate Russian military planning, and maintain Ukrainian offensive initiative despite being strategically defensive. They represent effective use of asymmetric capabilities to strike at Russian vulnerabilities despite Ukraine's overall disadvantage in resources and military power. However, characterizing them as a panacea dramatically overstates their potential to independently achieve Ukrainian strategic objectives. They form one element of a broader strategy that must also include defensive operations, combined arms warfare, international coalition maintenance, economic resilience, and sustained mobilization of Ukrainian society.

Ukraine's situation demands integrated approaches that combine military operations across all domains, economic warfare, diplomatic efforts to sustain international support, and domestic resilience to endure a protracted conflict. Energy infrastructure strikes contribute to this comprehensive approach but cannot substitute for success in other domains. They create problems for Russia without solving Ukraine's fundamental challenge of expelling Russian forces from occupied territory or forcing Moscow into negotiations that respect Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The war will likely be decided by the interaction of military effectiveness along the front lines, economic and industrial sustainability, international support networks, and domestic political will on both sides. Energy strikes influence these factors but do not dominate them sufficiently to warrant characterization as a decisive or panacea solution to Ukraine's strategic predicament.




NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list