By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In recent weeks, Ukraine has launched a series of attacks on Russian refineries, successfully disrupting their refining capacity by a significant margin, and forcing Russia to extend its petroleum product export ban. While Russia has responded with attacks on Ukrainian cities, including a deadly strike on Kyiv, the Ukrainian strikes have forced Russia to seek to increase crude oil exports and heavily discount its crude to maintain clients. On the battlefield, Russia has been shifting forces, particularly towards the Donetsk region, and claims of territorial gains have been disputed by independent assessments. Furthermore, Ukraine has made some advances in the Black Sea, striking Russian vessels and infrastructure, while also developing long-range strike capabilities to target deep within Russia.
Read the original article here
Ukraine knocks out Russian refineries as Russia kills dozens in Kyiv. It’s a grim dance we’re watching unfold. On one hand, we see Ukraine strategically targeting critical Russian infrastructure, notably their oil refineries. This is a move designed to cripple Russia’s war machine, impacting its ability to fund and sustain its military operations. It’s a calculated strategy, focusing on targets that directly support the Russian war effort. At the same time, we see a brutal and devastating response from Russia, with attacks targeting civilians in Kyiv. The accounts paint a picture of immense suffering and loss. The deliberate targeting of civilian populations seems to be a recurring pattern, a terroristic tactic intended to break the will of the Ukrainian people and compel them into submission.
Conversely, Ukraine’s methodical strikes against Russian infrastructure, particularly the refineries, appear to be having a tangible effect. There’s a reported reduction in Russian crude oil exports, suggesting the attacks are impacting Russia’s ability to process and export its oil. The economic consequences are potentially significant, squeezing Russia’s resources and hampering its capacity to continue the war. There’s an apparent disparity in tactics: Ukraine focuses on military and infrastructure targets, while Russia deliberately targets civilians. This reflects a fundamental difference in their approaches, with Ukraine attempting to undermine Russia’s ability to wage war, and Russia seeking to demoralize and terrify the Ukrainian population.
It’s tempting to wonder if a more decisive show of support from the United States would have altered the course of events, accelerating Ukraine’s ability to win. However, the complexities of international politics mean that such support is far from guaranteed. The extent of US involvement appears to have been calibrated, with enough aid to prevent a Russian victory but not enough to ensure a decisive Ukrainian one. This highlights the challenges of providing support in a major conflict, weighing the need to assist an ally against the risk of escalation. The coming winter will only increase the stress on both sides, especially on energy sources.
A pertinent question to be raised: Can Ukraine sustain these attacks on Russian infrastructure? The prospect of Russia increasing its air defenses around refineries presents a challenge. Russia has to make a choice. Focusing air defense on refineries means less protection for its troops in Ukraine, and vice versa. This strategic dilemma underscores the complexities of modern warfare, where resources are stretched and choices must be made. The situation demands a careful balancing act. This conflict, unfortunately, isn’t happening in a vacuum. Remembering the historical context is crucial. The relationship between Russia and Germany, particularly in the run-up to World War II, offers some chilling lessons. The alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany in dividing Europe and the shared military agreements that helped the Germans rearm offer a stark reminder of the dangers of cooperation.
The narrative surrounding the war’s origins also needs to be examined. The revisionist perspective is that Russia did not defeat the Nazis, that the Allies did, with a great deal of help from Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Russian blood. The fact that it was allies that ended up victorious makes the whole situation even more grim, because the reality is that the US, as an ally, has been in on a long game with Russia. It is a question of what the end goal is.
The internal politics of nations adds another layer to the mix. Concerns about censorship and the rise of authoritarian tendencies in some Western governments give us pause. There are many different angles on the war, and many different opinions on the subject, so it is important to look at all of them and form one’s own opinions.
Regarding Russian oil production, reports vary. Some sources estimate a significant percentage of production has been taken offline, while others suggest a smaller decrease. This difference points to the difficulties in assessing the true impact of the refinery attacks. A key factor is the speed with which damaged facilities can be repaired. The repair time for infrastructure is quite different than the repair time for more advanced pieces of technology.
The United States had the opportunity to change things at a pivotal point in history. While the atomic bomb may have been an option at one point, its use would have been a horrific event in itself.
Looking ahead, there’s a sense that the pattern of Russia, regardless of its leadership or form of government, seems to repeat itself: it collapses, rebuilds, and then repeats the cycle. The West’s response to the next collapse should be considered. Perhaps it is China that is the biggest threat. While China has its own challenges, including real estate slowing, and fertility problems, they are a factor that must be considered. Ultimately, the war is a complex and ever-changing situation.