By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Overnight on December 31, Ukrainian drone strikes caused significant damage to Russian oil and weapons facilities. The attacks targeted the Tuapse Oil Refinery, the Tamanneftegaz oil terminal, a Rosreserv oil depot, a temporary military base for river boats, and ammunition depots in occupied Ukraine. The strikes on the Tuapse refinery caused a fire and damaged key processing units, while the Tamanneftegaz terminal saw damage to two berths. Ukrainian forces also successfully struck the Rosreserv oil depot and several military targets in occupied territories. These actions exemplify the escalation of Ukrainian drone warfare against Russian infrastructure throughout 2025.
Read the original article here
Ukraine damages major Russian oil assets in New Year’s Eve strikes, military reports – now that’s a headline that grabs your attention, doesn’t it? It seems like the start of the new year brought a fiery message to Russia, with reports of Ukrainian strikes targeting significant oil infrastructure. The military reports are the source, the specifics are still unfolding, but the impact is undeniable: major Russian oil assets were damaged.
This news, as you can imagine, is sparking a wide range of reactions. Some are cheering, seeing it as a justified response to the ongoing conflict. Others are taking a more cautious stance, recognizing the complexities of war and the potential for escalation. The reactions vary widely from “Go Ukraine!” with enthusiastic emojis, to more measured comments. It underscores the deep divisions the conflict has created and the strong feelings it evokes.
The targeting of oil infrastructure, even amidst the festive season, is viewed by some as strategically sound. Refineries are considered fair game under international law and it’s understood that this approach undermines Russia’s economic capacity to continue the war. This perspective suggests that weakening Russia’s ability to fund its military operations is a legitimate tactic.
Conversely, there’s a counter-argument that views such actions during a holiday as problematic. The opposing perspective acknowledges the suffering and civilian casualties caused by Russian actions, yet expresses concern about the timing and potential for further environmental damage. These concerns highlight the moral and ethical dilemmas inherent in any armed conflict.
There’s a recurring theme in the discussions surrounding this news: Russia’s responsibility for the conflict. The consensus among many seems to be that Russia initiated the war and therefore bears the primary blame for its consequences. The argument is that Russia could end the conflict at any time by withdrawing its forces. This perspective views Ukraine’s actions as a form of self-defense and a necessary measure to protect itself and weaken the aggressor.
The focus on the aggressor is intertwined with discussions on the strategic choices made by Ukraine. The actions are seen as a way to weaken the aggressor. This also raises the question: Why should Ukraine simply “take it?” This argument stems from the belief that Russia should receive no sympathy for its actions.
There is recognition that this type of conflict is brutal by nature, and that both sides are likely to engage in actions that would be considered appalling in other circumstances. These complexities reflect the moral high ground and the need for moral superiority.
Some of the perspectives expressed are intensely critical of Russia, often labeling it a “genocidal state.” These comments reflect a deep-seated anger and distrust towards Russia. Some commenters express the view that only by inflicting enough pain on Russia can the killings stop. This view underscores the depth of animosity generated by the war.
The conversation is not without humor. Some find dark humor in the situation, as the user did when using an expression like “Happy New Year Putin!” and other comments laced with sarcasm. This approach helps to deal with the grim reality of the ongoing war.
Underlying all these views is a fundamental disagreement about the cause of the conflict. Some point to the Euromaidan revolution of 2014 as the root of the problem. However, the majority view is that Russia’s invasion is a clear and unprovoked act of aggression.
Ultimately, the Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil assets are a complex event. It’s a military action with immediate strategic implications. It is also an event laden with ethical considerations, historical context, and strong emotional undercurrents. It’s the kind of event that triggers diverse reactions, ranging from jubilation to concern.