By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Overnight on October 13th, Ukrainian drones struck the largest Russian oil depot in Feodosia, Crimea, causing a massive fire. According to a source, the SBU targeted at least five tanks and an electricity substation in Feodosia, and another in Simferopol. Social media showed videos of the blaze, which occurred around midnight, marking the second attack on the facility in a week. Located 250 kilometers from Ukrainian-controlled territory, the depot is the largest in Crimea, holding up to 250,000 tons of fuel, supplying Russian forces, and is being targeted in an effort to reduce Russia’s capacity to wage war.
Read the original article here
“At least 5 tanks hit” – Ukrainian drones spark massive blaze at Russia’s largest oil terminal in occupied Crimea, a recent confirmation paints a vivid picture, doesn’t it? It’s hard not to be drawn into the immediacy of such a strike, especially when it’s reported that a major oil terminal in Crimea, which Russia currently occupies, is ablaze. This isn’t just about infrastructure; it’s about the arteries of Russia’s war machine being targeted. The confirmed hits on at least five tanks are significant because they represent both material damage and a psychological blow.
The implications are pretty clear: Ukraine is hitting Russia where it hurts, in its ability to fuel its forces and potentially fund the war. The fact that this occurred at the largest oil terminal in Crimea amplifies the impact, disrupting the flow of oil and, consequently, weakening Russia’s capacity to sustain its operations. It’s a tactical move that could further pressure Russia, especially as winter approaches and the demand for fuel increases. Think of it like this: every tank hit is a small victory, but the collective effect of many small victories, especially on key infrastructure, can be quite profound.
This kind of targeted action, leveraging drone technology, suggests a strategic shift. It highlights Ukraine’s efforts to degrade Russia’s ability to wage war, focusing on its critical supply chains and military assets. If Ukraine can continue to effectively target Russia’s logistics and infrastructure, it could force Russia to the negotiation table. Russia’s vulnerability to these attacks might make them more open to ending the war.
The narrative often shifts toward how conflicts end. The war could technically end today if Russia simply decided to withdraw. The reason why this seems unlikely is because Russia believes that continuing to fight is in their best interest. This belief, however, is now challenged by the success of the attacks and the economic strain they are causing. If Russia’s oil sales take a hit, it’s reasonable to assume they would run out of money eventually.
Considering the current situation, the economic impact on Russia is something to consider. The continuous attacks on oil infrastructure could accelerate the depletion of their financial resources. Cutting off the ability to sell oil will eventually affect the military. Supplying Ukraine with the means to strike at Russia’s military manufacturing and its economy could make peace talks more realistic. Long-range cruise missiles, like the Tomahawk, in significant quantities, would be useful. However, this approach takes time and isn’t a quick fix.
An alternative, although much riskier, would involve direct NATO involvement. However, this is unrealistic unless Russia forces NATO’s hand. Any other way the war ends could have very negative consequences for Ukraine. Nuclear weapons are a concern, but if Russia goes that route, everyone loses. The scenario of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan is comparable to Russia’s current situation: a crippled economy and citizens losing faith in their government.
The discussion often involves the question of how to force Russia’s hand without sacrificing Ukraine. This leads to several perspectives: providing Ukraine with all the necessary weaponry, increasing support, stationing Western troops to protect Ukrainian cities, and stopping the fear of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons. The idea is that, given all of the red lines have already been crossed, any action will follow gradually. It means being bold and helping Ukraine.
A key point is the role of Russia’s leadership. If Putin and his generals aren’t prepared to sacrifice their own lives, it influences the strategic calculus. Even if Putin were inclined to use nuclear weapons, the hesitation of his generals would potentially halt such a move. The fact that Russia didn’t use nukes when Ukraine occupied part of the Kursk area means it’s highly unlikely they would now.
Looking back, the Wagner rebellion also sheds some light on the inner workings of Russia. It’s a reminder that power dynamics within Russia are complex and unpredictable. And, if there’s an internal upheaval, this could change the course of the war. The lack of any meaningful reaction when Ukraine occupied the Kursk area is key, and it suggests that Russia’s nuclear deterrent might be less robust than often perceived, and this is why Ukraine can continue to strike and inflict damage.