By Matt Underwood Ukraine confirms a strike on a Crimean oil terminal, and the resulting three-day blaze, is a pretty major development, and it really makes you think about the strategic implications of such actions. The fact that this fire has been burning for such an extended period suggests the damage is extensive, and that has significant implications.
Crimea’s energy infrastructure is a critical logistical hub for Russian forces. This makes perfect sense, as a sustained fire like this could severely disrupt fuel supplies to the southern front. It really appears that Ukraine is strategically doubling down on deep-strike tactics. This autumn, that kind of pressure, hitting their infrastructure, is an effective way to put pressure on Russia. It’s certainly looking like it will be a long, cold winter for the Russian forces, and continuing these strikes until the oil terminal is completely out of operation seems like a smart move.
I’m always surprised that renewable energy is so rarely discussed in the context of national defense. From the perspective of strategic independence from imported oil and the deployment of diffuse infrastructure, this aspect is particularly important. This strike sounds like it might involve another costly and lengthy repair for Russia. It’s definitely a calculated move. Russia has been systematically targeting Ukraine’s thermal generating plants in order to deprive them of power over the winter months, and now it looks like Ukraine is doing something very similar. I suppose this strategy is being pursued as part of the ongoing conflict, and many people have no problem with seeing those impacted by it.
It has to be demoralizing for the Russian troops, as they have had difficulty advancing on land and now Ukraine seems to have both the means and the approval to strike deeper into Russia. It’s loss after loss for the Russian army. It’s a very powerful statement – Ukraine is able to blow up infrastructure, too, without intentionally killing civilians. This is a sign of determination and resilience, which makes it all the more impressive. The strategy is sound; removing the infrastructure that supports the other side’s war of attrition. Russia is already partially crippled, with many of its refineries already on fire or destroyed by Ukrainian drones.
Renewable energy comes into play in this discussion. While large-scale renewable energy projects require strong grid requirements, the advantages are clear. The existing oil terminals and similar infrastructure are easier to attack than smaller scale renewable energy projects, which involve distributed resources. It is also important to note the role of transmission lines. They are vital for renewable energy systems, and damage to them, while challenging, is also a manageable issue. And while setting up hydroelectric systems can be expensive, it has shown to be a cost-effective way to produce electricity over time. Also, the production costs associated with renewables are far lower than those of traditional fuel sources.
It’s also important to acknowledge that the increasing strikes on fossil fuel infrastructure are increasing the cost of fossil fuels marginally. It’s not the one big thing that changes the world, but it’s a small part of a process. OPEC is pumping so much oil right now to keep prices low and be competitive, but also to sell as much as they can because the demand is still there.
Regarding advances on the ground, maps suggest that Russians are making progress, albeit slowly. This is a war of attrition. The Ukrainian people have shown themselves to be resilient and determined. They are enduring, and the situation can shift quickly, and when one side runs out of resources or will, everything happens very quickly.