By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On December 5, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) launched a drone strike on a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal within Russia’s Temryuk Seaport, resulting in a three-day fire. The SBU’s Alpha special operations unit conducted the attack, targeting the Maktren-Nafta production facilities. The strike destroyed roughly 70% of the facility’s fuel tanks, along with railway tankers and related infrastructure. This operation aligns with the SBU’s ongoing efforts to cripple Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure, which supports the war against Ukraine.
Read the original article here
It burns for 3 days, according to a recent report, a Ukrainian drone strike on December 5th ignited a massive blaze at Russia’s Temryuk Seaport. The target was a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal located in Krasnodar Krai, and the fire, as described by an SBU source, raged for a significant period. This information, relayed to the Kyiv Independent, paints a picture of a strategically planned operation with substantial consequences.
The scale of the destruction is underscored by the confirmation from Ukraine’s General Staff on December 8th. They reported that approximately 70% of the facility’s fuel tanks were destroyed. This isn’t just a minor skirmish; it’s a direct hit on vital energy infrastructure, potentially crippling Russia’s supply capabilities, at least temporarily.
The operation itself appears to be quite sophisticated, conducted by the SBU’s elite Alpha special operations unit. The specific target was identified as the production facilities of Maktren-Nafta, a company engaged in liquefied natural gas transshipment. The “three days” of burning paints a graphic image of the intensity and the sustained nature of the resulting damage.
The damage report further details the scope of the assault. The strike allegedly caused fires in over 20 of the site’s 30 storage tanks, each holding 200 cubic meters. Beyond the tanks, railway tankers, an intermediate fueling unit, and a loading/unloading overpass were also reportedly destroyed. This comprehensive attack caused a fire that spread across roughly 3,000 square meters. The destruction appears to have been significant.
The discussion surrounding such an attack naturally brings up ethical considerations and broader implications. One point of view suggests that targeting military infrastructure is a legitimate act during wartime, and that employees have a choice of where to work, while also acknowledging the potential for collateral effects, such as a potential rise in energy costs. The fact that Russia could end the war at any time, simply by withdrawing, shifts the focus and responsibility in the eyes of some.
The nature of modern warfare, and its impact on the every day civilian is also brought into the conversation. The use of drones and other technologies seems to be increasingly normalizing the targeting of infrastructure in wartime.
The economic repercussions are also a topic of concern, given the current world situation. The rise in energy prices and the economic hardships associated are noted. The overall sentiment is that the war has vast implications for the global market, especially regarding energy costs, and that the long-term resolution is a significant challenge.
The sentiment that seems to emerge from the situation is that, while the war has clear consequences, the responsibility ultimately lies with Russia to cease the hostilities. The focus becomes supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself and taking action to end the conflict quickly.