By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to sources in Ukraine’s Military Intelligence (HUR), the Druzhba oil pipeline, which transports Russian crude to several EU countries, was hit again on Monday near Kazynskiye Vyselki. The blast was caused by a remotely detonated explosive, intensifying the fire. This attack is part of Kyiv’s escalating campaign against Russia’s oil infrastructure, intended to disrupt the flow of revenue funding Moscow’s war effort. Previous strikes on the pipeline’s Unecha pumping station, a key hub in the Druzhba system, had already drawn condemnation from Hungary, which relies on the pipeline for oil imports.
Read the original article here
Druzhba Pipeline ‘Will Keep Exploding and Burning,’ Ukraine Says After New Dec. 1 Strike, and it’s a statement that carries a potent message. The recent attacks on the Druzhba oil pipeline, specifically the one on the Russian-Belarusian border, mark the third such incident in a relatively short period. The immediate consequence? The supply of crude oil to Hungary has been halted, once again. The implications of these repeated strikes are substantial, particularly given the ongoing conflict.
The question of why these attacks are happening seems clear: the pipeline is a vital artery of revenue for Russia, the aggressor in this war. Disconnecting it disrupts the flow of funds that fuel the conflict. This is not just a tactical move; it is a strategic one, designed to undermine the war machine. The understanding is that this disruption will continue.
The targeting of the pipeline has also exposed some uncomfortable truths about the relationships within the European Union and the broader geopolitical landscape. While specific exemptions for countries like Hungary and Slovakia are a consideration, the current situation highlights the complex choices these nations face. Some countries, particularly Hungary, have drawn criticism for their close ties with Russia. They’ve had years to find alternative energy sources but haven’t, choosing instead to rely on a source that directly finances the war. This reliance comes with its own set of consequences.
The sentiment that the pipeline will continue to be a target is understandable, particularly when viewed through the lens of a conflict where every tactic is on the table. The objective is clear: to impede Russia’s ability to wage war. The idea of inflicting repeated damage to the pipeline, making repairs difficult, and then striking again as soon as the flow resumes, reflects the intensity of the situation. This strategy is not merely about destroying infrastructure; it’s about sending a message.
Furthermore, it’s worth considering the practical aspects of these attacks. The use of remotely detonated explosives fitted with incendiary compounds to intensify the fire raises questions about the methods and materials involved. Speculation about the use of substances like phosphorus or thermite adds to the technical understanding of how these attacks are executed. Given the pipeline’s age and maintenance, the suggestion that the structure is vulnerable and may fail on its own is also a point to note.
The fallout from these attacks extends beyond the immediate damage to infrastructure. The situation raises broader questions about the roles and allegiances of various nations. Some suggest that Hungary deserves the consequences of its choices and that the situation might even be a precursor for increased involvement from Belarus. The underlying tension boils down to whether nations are willing to align themselves with a war-mongering regime.
The emotional dimension of the attacks is equally important. The phrase “the explosions will continue until Hungary improves” reflects a desire to see change in Hungary’s stance. This is not just about oil supply; it’s about holding countries accountable for their political choices and the consequences they may bring. The notion that the attacks are a new phase in the conflict, a form of “fireworks” display in response to these alliances, can’t be missed.
The attacks have also stirred debate about the European Union’s structure. The absence of a mechanism to expel member states, especially those perceived to be hostile or uncooperative, is seen as a significant oversight. Calls for other nations to consider a “new EU,” excluding those with questionable allegiances, emphasize the frustration with the current dynamics. The central idea is that the EU, designed to bring member states back to reason, has no tool to respond to the actions of a rogue member, and that, perhaps, is a flaw.
Finally, the whole Druzhba issue touches on the symbolic meaning of the word itself. The irony of a pipeline named “friendship” being a target in an ongoing conflict is hard to ignore. The events have highlighted the deep-rooted political and economic tensions underlying the war and the complex web of relationships that define the European landscape. The message is clear: the pipeline will continue to be a focus, and the consequences of political choices will be felt.