Public opinion strongly supports Ukraine's drone strikes on Russian oil infrastructure, viewing them as vital to weakening Russia's military and economy amidst the ongoing conflict. Many admire Ukraine's tactical decisions and express solidarity, though there are concerns about potential Russian retaliation.

Ukraine

Russia

at the point they're going 2000km they're just mini cruise missiles aren't they? as far as I know the ones capable of this are jet powered like cruise missiles, I guess just not launched into the air via rocket fuel is the distinction?

faffc260

cinciNattyLight

News snippets: Ukrainian drones reportedly attacked the city of Tyumen in the Russian region of Siberia late on Oct. 6, local officials reported.

Officials from Russia's Tyumen Oblast claimed on Telegram that three Ukrainian drones were shot down over an "industrial facility" in the city, adding that no fire, casualties, or explosions occurred amid the attack.

Officials further claimed that the unspecified facility is operating "without interruption," following the attack.


Russian media Telegram channel ASTRA reported, citing local residents, that the intended target may have been the Antipinsky oil refinery, located in the south-east part of the city. Local residents reported hearing explosions as well as numerous fire trucks en-route sometime between 8pm - 9pm local time.

Reacting to the attack, Russia's Emergency Situations Ministry said that no fire had occurred at the refinery.

AndroidOne1

the russian-Ukraine war is basically showing what modern warfare will be like from now on. Eventually we will get deployable carriers packed with drones that when they arrive at their destination it'll basically be like a Protoss Carrier for precision strikes fueled by AI targeting.

The_Question757

Illustrious_Can7469

Siberia is at least 5,000 km away.  This is a huge increase in range.

Mysterious-Coat-1215

tnh34

&gt;The CDU-6 unit has a capacity of 160,000 barrels per day — around 40% of the refinery’s total output. According to Reuters, repairs may take around a month.

It would be a terrible shame if it was hit again in about 30 days. 

A terrible shame.

Queltis6000

This is the best. Hit them where the money hurts :D

Dramatic_Charity_979

Ak_Lonewolf

You lot don’t find this the least bit skeptical? Does Russia just have all their refineries and infrastructure on Ukraines border? Everyday some refinery is attacked/destroyed. Russia is big friggin place and most of their oil comes from the Northern Regions, if Ukraine can’t reach Moscow how the hell are they doing all this? I get Crimea, but the North Sea and Siberia? Makes no sense.

Legitimate questions.

Mr_Waffles123

From terminal to terminated, from ammunition to a-munition.  
Every day without Russian terrorism is a good day.

Marchello_E

Miao_Yin8964

Eastern-Cricket-497

They are attacking russian oil facilities?  Do they want to have more expensive fuel? 

43% of their diesel import comes from India, Slovakia and Turkey. And where do those countries get most of oil and it's rafinered products?

JanPapajT90M

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

The only way you win a war is you remove their desire to keep fighting. 

  
This seems like a great plan for that.

discourse_friendly

Definitely. It's the only way that Russia and the Russians can learn that they shouldn't be attacking people. They need to feel it personally.

satyrday12

1. It is war. Oil refineries are a key industrial target and fair game. Yes on striking and the goal needs to be to inflict pain on the average Russian. 

2. Yes, the attacks will shorten the war by either cutting off Russia’s ability to finance the war long term or by increasing political pressure from inside and outside the regime. If Russian can’t give China discount oil, China will kick them to the curb.

3. The two are incredibly interconnected. It is virtually impossible to incapacitate a nations military capabilities without interfering with civilian life. It’s war. By nature, war is hell and should be viewed in no other light. 

My personal opinion, which is not worth much, is fighting a war like is happening in Ukraine without hammering every possible target is a fruitless endeavor. If a nations military relies on electricity, medical supplies, food, water, etc you target it all. The more brutal it is, the faster it will end. Had the world allowed Ukraine to strike Russian oil assets in 2023, w the war would likely be over today. 

Nuclear weapons are scary, but you can’t live in fear of them. If you do, everyone will want one because it will be seen as an insurance card. If someone uses them even once, hellfire should rain down upon that civilization to make an example of them.

OpportunityNew9316

&gt; would it harden Russian resolve and push Moscow closer to countries like China and Iran?


You're way too late on this one. Moscow is already hitting NATO with sabotage, election interference, bribery, espionage, and even border incursions. They're trading military technologies with Iran and North Korea. China is supplying them with much of the 'dual use' technology they need to continue fighting, and Russia is trying to build a large pipeline from Siberia to China. Rapprochement isn't going to happen anytime soon.

GiantPineapple

I don’t understand why they wouldn’t keep striking oil refineries given how effective it’s been. If anything they would want to break Russia’s economy since that is what ultimately power’s Russia’s war machine.

AlexandrTheTolerable

Oh absolutely.  Russia attacked Ukraine,  Ukraine can do what ever the fuck they want to.

someoldguyon_reddit

Wars of aggression in the modern era should have steep economic costs associated with them. Ukraine is doing the correct thing here. If Russian citizens don’t appreciate it they should let their leader know.

undead_opossum

From what I've read, the Russian economy is already teetering. Defense manufacturing is the only sector still functioning normally, and it's in overdrive. This is both good and bad. Good, in the sense that Russia has real economic problems and that could spell the end of Putin. Bad, in that Putin likely can't just pull the plug on this disastrous war, without risking total collapse of the Russian Federation. 

Ukraine has to play the few angles they have in this conflict to hurt Russia. Considering how aggressive Russia has been about targeting civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, apartment buildings and such, I don't think any reasonable argument can be made that targeting Russian refineries in return is immoral, or strategically unhelpful.

BluesSuedeClues

1. Yes.  
2. Yes.  
3. That's more complicated.

Lets not mince words. Ukraine and Russia are at War. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine is defending themselves. They put up defenses, they are holding lines where they can, but in a 'playground' - do you just put up your fist and arms to stop the bully? or do you punch back? The answer is - you need to punch back or they are going to keep coming at you. Russia is a bully. They need to be given a few black eyes. Or more. To do that you need to go after their infrastructure, and that's what Ukraine is doing now.

Daneyn

I am reminded of the wartime quote by British Air Marshall Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them."

mycatisgrumpy

1 - Yes. If the Russian civilians don't like it, they can take it up with Putin. He can pull air defense back from Ukraine so they can thump troops instead 


2 - Only Putin can stop the war. The only way it will stop is if he feels pain. Ukraine doesn't give two shits if Russia aligns with China if it gets the invaders to fuck off


3 - Given how Russia routinely attacks Ukrainian infrastructure and civilians, they don't have any reason to whine about it

Objective_Aside1858

Breaking Russia's back via economic means is literally the objective and its basically the only way they can win this war in the end. So yes. Keep bombing the shit out of Russian oil and gas.

SorryToPopYourBubble

How else one could stop the military machine if not breaking its mechanism and not just keep fighting the products of this military machine while having less resources?

Whatever-That-Memes

Who is going to say no to this? They're literally at war, of course you target your enemy's oil in a war, that's a no brainer. Anything that serves a military purpose is a legitimate target, it's irrelevant that it also has civilian uses.

Knight_Machiavelli

I don't find this to be any kind of ethical dilemma at all. Waging war against the means to make war is totally acceptable and not a single ally should be objecting.

DCBuckeye82

Ukraine lacks the manpower to win through brute force on the battlefield.  It can maintain defensive positions and inflict a lot of damage, but it does not have the means to mount a sustained offensive to take much territory.  

Ukraine's pathway to victory lies in making the war untenable for Putin to continue it.  Making life miserable for everyday Russians, depriving the treasury of revenue, destroying infrastructure and creating distractions that force Russia to play defense will get them there.  

Putin has maintained his rule by promising prosperity to those in the major cities of the west in exchange for passive acceptance of his authoritarianism.  Failing to deliver on the promised prosperity weakens his ability to hold power.  

Putin has few allies, so his growing weakness will likely lead to his opponents making plans as they consider next steps.  The oligarchs don't want to go down with the Putin ship.

I405CA

They should level the fucking Kremlins at this point. The Russians only understand belligerent violence.

McCool303

They are at war. Breaking Russia's economy is a national security objective. Of fucking course they should keep hitting them.

the_calibre_cat

Of course. Striking at oil refineries is way better than striking at apartment buildings if you want to keep civilian casualties (especially children) to a minimum.

Ana_Na_Moose

1: Yes. Oil refineries are legitimate military targets. Some of that oil will end up as fuel for the drones that Russia sends into Ukraine. 

2: Potentially. Russia is almost on a total war footing. It needs those refineries to earn money for its war machine and to fuel its jets, drones, trucks, and tanks. No gas, no fight. Russia has already moved closer to both of them. However, Iran's ability to assist the Russians is limited and they have an Israel-shaped threat to deal with. The Chinese are always going to hedge their bets against the Russians because they want access to the global economy. 

3: The line is basically anything that funds, fuels, or builds for the war. A powerplant can be a legitimate target if it supplies electricity to an airfield. Oil refineries are legitimate targets because they produce oil for weapons production and fueling. Bridges can be legitimate targets because they're used to move troops, etc.

EdgeWardog

Yes. Russia doesn't worry about unintended consequences when they invaded Ukraine. Why should they? We did nothing when they took Crimea. Hit Russia early and often.

baxterstate

Whatever Russia is doing to Ukraine should be fair game for Ukraine to do to Russia.

MEDICARE_FOR_ALL

It is war, yes?

In war infrastructure gets decimated as a war tactic, simple as that. Surprised its taken them this long to start hitting those targets.

LikelySoutherner

Absolutely yes.

Striking Russian oil and gas sectors deprives Russia of the wealth needed to keep the war going, and brings the war home so to speak, thus increasing the political pressure in Kreml to end the war.

Collapsing Russian economy is just a nice bonus that helps the whole Europe to be safer so that Europeans can spend their time and money to improve their economies instead of buying and manufacturing more arms and munitions.

VilleKivinen

Definitely. 

Ukraine is defending itself against an aggressor and as long as it's military related, it should be okay.

TonyG_from_NYC

None of what you stated is a reason for Ukraine to stop these strikes. If Russia stops being able to pay their soldiers then Ukraine can win. Why would I give a shit that Russian civilians are being made uncomfortable by a failing economy when the solution is to stop the invasion of their neighbor?

pleased_to_yeet_you

Who started this war? Russia. Who was the aggressor? Again, Russia. Who has been selling black market oil in order to fund the war? Thrice now, Russia. Of course the Ukraine is well within their rights  to attack Refineries controlled and operated by Russia.

ChelseaMan31

I don't even see how this is a question. They're at war, they should strike anything that stops the drones from killing their children.

maphingis

Consequence of war. If the civilians don't like being in poverty, maybe they can vote for someone else to go in office and make decisions./s

RexDraco

Yes. Ruining the Russian economy ruins the Russian war effort.

Doing so saves both Ukrainian and Russian lives in the long run.

DJ_HazyPond292

Absolutely.....strike Russian oil and gas processing equipment.
Cripple their economy.

tonyd1957

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. If you attack us, destroy our assets, kill our civilians, etc. - the defender can destroy gas/oil energy source to cripple the war effort, which includes propping up the war economy.

GshegoshB

We just watched our leaders tell us that they will have no mercy on there own citizens. Your worried about the oil? Blow up every damn facility you see that's the American way apparently and don't you know we are winners.

FaintXD

Excuse me?

That would be like offering that mustachioed German dictator 80 years ago a few shiping convoys of supplies. Why would we want to make life easier for the Russians?They are the invaders, as to the "civilians", sod them all as they are just as complicit as any grunt in the army. Maybe if their economy collapsed, they would line them all against the wall and end them and surrender to NATO and start rebuilding without the oligarcs and PuuPuu

Margali

Double that with Europe to hopefully cut off Russia as an oil source and then Putin starts to feel the pinch.   Why the EU chooses to fund both sides of the war is confounding to their rhetoric regarding Ukraine.

Funklestein

From Sun Tzu, the Order of Battle is (from least to most expensive/complicated):

\- Attack the Man  
\- Attack the Plan  
\- Attack the Alliances  
\- Attack the Resources  
\- Attack the Army in the Field  
\- Attack the Cities

Putin is dug in and protected (so far), and his plan is at the expensive end:  the Army in the Field and Cities.  Russian alliances are a bit iffy - China and NorK, but China wouldn't mind seeing Russia flounder.   Ukranian alliances are many and varied, ranging from NATO in general to many other countries including US.

The oil refineries (Ploesti and Dutch East Indies in WW II, anyone?) are the next obvious soft spot to strike as the Resources tier is now in play.

atomicsnarl

With Ukraine trying to bring the war to home for the average Russian and hurt the supply lines of fuel and industry in that country, I think that makes sense. Given the crimes Russia has commited against average Ukraine civilians it's not unjustified at all. 

1. Ukraine should continue targeting those refineries to cripple Russia's fighting ability so they can potentially be pushed into the diplomatic process. And global markets and supply chains have had adequate time to reroute so impact on the world stage will be not as drastic. 

2. Destroying more refineries will harm their military's supply chain and hopefully shorten the war or at least cause significant damage to Russian economy over the medium term. Moscow is already in bed with China and Iran and that's likely not changing anytime soon. 

3. That's a hard call, but it's hard to force your country to make that distinction when your enemy has made total war against your civilian infrastructure for so long. Governments should generally focus on legit military targets unless in a total war scenario, like what is happening now.

Craft_feisty

This isn’t an attack on civilians, but on infrastructure. Yes, that also affects civilians, and that’s bad- wars should try their best to minimize influence on civilian populations. But appeasement is worse than that. Russia attacked Ukraine and has been attacking Ukrainian infrastructure- and targeting civilians directly- for some time, now. For Ukraine to put itself at such a disadvantage as to not attack Russian infrastructure because of the negative effects that has on Russian civilians is appeasement. It only encourages Russia to engage in such activities further, and thereby puts civilians *more* at risk, not less

If one want civilians targeted less, Ukraine should continue these activities

Mountain-Resource656

1) Yes. They're at war, the entire point is to find ways to win - as long as it doesn't kill civilians to do it.  
2) It'd be tough for the Russians. With Ukraine, I'd like to think Europe has their back, there's going to be an economic cost (hopefully eventually paid by Russia) but Ukraine will stand as Ukraine at the end of this. Russia and China, while neighbours, are allies of convenience. China will help if it's in their own best interest, and if that helps to weaken Russia while strengthening themselves, they'll do it  
3) If these refineries are providing finance to keep the military machine going, they're valid targets. They need to mitigate civilian risk, they can't just carpet bomb everything to achieve their target.

Secret-Sky5031

This is happening in Europe’s back door. They should be doing everything to support Ukraine and stop all business transactions with Russia. 

1. Yes, definitely.

2. Yes to both.

3. Ridiculous question. There are no such lines. Destroying the enemy's infrastructure is one of the main points of successful warfare, to make them incapable of continuing the fight. 

People sometimes seem to think of war as a refereed sporting event between two professional armies that try to prevent civilian deaths. It isn't. Civilians are the ultimate target of all warfare. The point of the exercise is to inflict so many civilian deaths that the other side sees the hopelessness of their position and gives up fighting to preserve what's left.

If you asked that question of the leaders in WWII, they would be dumbfounded at the naivete of the questioner. The whole plan plan of every nation involved was to destroy enough of the enemy infrastructure to make resistance impossible, and if that involved distress to the civilian population, that too, was part of the plan to get those civilians force the government to stop the war.

Tliish

&gt; Energy facilities are considered “dual use” — they support both military and civilian needs. That makes them a gray area under international law and ethics. 

Bluntly, this is not true at all. Yes, they have more than one purpose, but that does not make them a grey area. 

They are generally considered legitimate military targets, and have been heavily targeted in pretty much every war since oil became relevant to war a century ago. (Also: Pretty much any other logistics infrastructure can be legitimately targeted - roads, rails, ports, bridges, etc. Civilians use/benefit from these things, but they are still entirely legitimate military targets in most cases.)

-----

1. Obviously, they're extremely high-value targets that directly impact Russia's ability to continue the war. Both in impacting military logistics directly and in impacting Russia's finances and ability to finance/continue the war.

2. Putin has been firmly resolved from the beginning. Ordinary Russians do not appear to ever have been convinced of the necessity/value of the war and thus they're unlikely to become larger supporters of the war by facing hardship resulting from it. (Note: That doesn't mean Russians originally opposed the war - plenty were perfectly happy to support it if Russia would be winning quickly + easily)

3. While I think there's always going to be an actual grey area of modest military benefit weighed against significant civilian harms, I don't think most of the things people frequently debate are that grey, and I don't think pretty much any of Ukraine's target choices so far are in that grey area.

SkiingAway

Short answer: **yes, but selectively**.

**Legally/ethically:** Under IHL, dual-use sites can be lawful targets if (1) they offer *concrete and direct* military advantage (fuel = Russian logistics) and (2) expected civilian harm isn’t excessive (proportionality) and precautions are taken. Ukraine also acts under UN Charter **Art. 51** self-defense.

**Strategy:** Hitting *bottlenecks* (hydrocrackers, desulfurization units, storage/transfer nodes) strains Russia’s military supply more than broad damage. It’s closer to an interdiction campaign than “economic warfare.” History suggests targeted oil strikes can bite (see WWII’s late-war oil campaign) but states adapt, so effects fade without sustained pressure.

**Risks:**  
• Blowback on civilians + energy prices; Kremlin may use hardship to harden resolve.  
• Incentivizes Russia to escalate against Ukrainian grid.  
• Political limits—some partners balk if strikes look like broad economic coercion inside Russia.

**Practical line to draw:**

1. Prioritize components directly feeding military depots/airbases.
2. Avoid mass-casualty windows; give warnings where feasible.
3. Time strikes to support Ukrainian ops, not to maximize civilian pain.
4. Pair with messaging: goal = reduce attacks on civilians, *not* punish Russians as a people.
5. Coordinate with partners to cushion market shocks.

Consistent-Ad3037

1) Harming global markets is where it gets dicey because that can cause reduced support for Ukraine in the west and a rally effect of Russia's allies. So this isn't quite a simple question. Personally, I lean toward yes...they should do it if my interest was aligned with Ukraine's interest. 

2) Moscow is already as close to China as it can reasonably get in my opinion. Iran doesn't matter one way or another as they are weak and mostly a liability for both. I don't think Ukraine has a ton to lose here as far as Russia behaving differently. It can lose with the west and Russia's backers behaving differently. 

3) Infrastructure is fair game. Sanctions are designed to hurt civilians too.

deleveragedsellout

How is this even a discussion lmao. Handicapping Ukraines ability to fight back against a much larger nation thats trying to wipe it out?

Had to role my eyes at this one.

Haunting-Strategy619

Ukraine is losing on the front lines, strikes on Russia. Oil refineries are mosquito bites.  
Russia is taking out Ukrainian critical infrastructure as we speak.  
Countless videos show no line ups at Russia has stations and no price hikes.   
Russia was supposed to run out of missiles and they were supposedly using chips from washing machines to power military hardware...all lies all propaganda.  Sanctions were supposed to cripple the Russian economy etc etc

AffectionateSignal53

Errr yes. Russian civilians need to suffer. The more they do. The more likely they are to overthrow Putin and end the war. Suffering economically is a good way to achieve this.

throwawayanon1252

Really? How about all the hospitals, schools and apartment buildings that Russia has bombed in the Ukraine? How about all of the electric plants in the Ukraine that Russia has bombed?

Just who started this war?

Russia is just now discovering the "find out" side of FAFO.

pinellaspete

Yes. Russia has also attacked dual / civil targets in Ukraine. Also, the current regime in Russia has shown willingness for imperial warfare from Chechnya onward, clinging to fossil fuels, and antidemocratic meddling with Western politics and elections.

The world will not know peace until Putin's government falls and is superceded by something quite different. It'll take a lot, but that must be the goal.

jlehtira

The theses presented in the post are based on a profoundly erroneous and one-sided understanding of the situation, ignoring key norms of international law, the causes of the conflict, and its real consequences. The counter-position is built on the following fundamental arguments.



\*\*1. Legal Qualification: This is Terrorism, Not a Legitimate Military Operation.\*\*



Ukrainian strikes on oil refining infrastructure within the territory of the Russian Federation are not "strategic operations," but acts of international terrorism. Here is why:



\*   \*\*Violation of the Principle of Distinction.\*\* International humanitarian law, specifically Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, strictly prohibits attacks on objects which are "civilian in nature." While oil refineries can be conditionally classified as "dual-use" objects, the primary function of the fuel they produce is to support agriculture, transportation, heating for residential buildings, and critical infrastructure. Targeted strikes leading to disruptions in school bus services, interruptions in food supplies, and price hikes inflict disproportionate harm on the civilian population, which constitutes a war crime.

\*   \*\*Lack of Direct Military Advantage.\*\* The strikes target objects located deep in the rear, hundreds of kilometers from the front line. Their impact on the logistics of the armed forces is indirect, mediated, and stretched over time. At the same time, the harm to peaceful citizens is direct, immediate, and severe. Such an imbalance directly violates the \*\*principle of proportionality\*\*.

\*   \*\*Methods of Conducting Attacks.\*\* The use of unmanned aerial vehicles to penetrate the territory of a sovereign state and carry out sabotage cannot be qualified as anything other than terrorist activity. If Ukraine were acting within the law, it would strike exclusively at military objects in the combat zone

Nice_Confection_1790

1. I don't see how this saves Ukrainian lives, this more likely will anger Russian side to start striking without caring about them.

2. Firstly, contrary to popular yet very wrong belief, Ukrainian civilian casualty since 2022 is less than 2%. Russia is already out of the Western Banking System yet we, the Europeans feel the economical crisis approaching step by step.

3. There is the ICC for a reason just that, nobody gives a F about it.

zaplayer20

Ukraine has intensified its drone attacks on Russian energy infrastructure, contributing to a growing fuel crisis in Russia.

Ukrainian Strikes on Russian Oil Infrastructure

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want