By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian drones struck Russia’s Volgograd oil refinery overnight, causing a fire at the Lukoil-operated facility, according to local media. This incident follows a pattern of Ukrainian strikes targeting Russian energy infrastructure, which Kyiv views as legitimate military targets funding Moscow’s war. Recent attacks include the use of Neptune missiles and HIMARS in Bryansk Oblast and the disabling of communication infrastructure in Belgorod Oblast by a pro-Ukrainian partisan group. Russia’s Defense Ministry reported shooting down numerous drones across several regions.
Read the original article here
Ukrainian drones reportedly targeted Russia’s Volgograd oil refinery overnight, causing a significant blaze and raising questions about the impact of such strikes on the ongoing conflict. The incident, which local media reported occurred on February 11th, highlights a pattern of Ukrainian strikes targeting Russian infrastructure deep within its borders.
The reports of the drone attack immediately sparked discussion about the effectiveness and implications of these operations. There’s a desire to see a clear, documented overview of all major attacks within Russia to better assess their cumulative impact on the war effort. The frequency of these headlines often leaves one wondering if they are truly affecting Russia’s capacity or resolve.
The Volgograd oil refinery has a historical significance, having been known as Stalingrad until 1961, the site of one of history’s most brutal and terrifying battles. This connection to such a pivotal historical event adds a layer of resonance to the current drone attack, underscoring the ongoing struggle for control and influence.
There’s a sentiment that Ukrainian drone operators demonstrated excellent piloting and target selection in this latest strike. The successful execution of such missions is met with a sense of “good hunting” and acknowledgment of their efforts, while also acknowledging that retaliation from Russia is a likely consequence.
Speculation also arose regarding the potential role of intelligence in these operations. Some comments suggest that US intelligence might be playing a significant role, enabling Ukraine to strike at Russia’s domestic oil production capabilities. This suggests a broader strategic effort to cripple Russia’s economy and its ability to fund the war.
The broader context of this strike also brings into focus the economic pressures on Russia. Combined with low oil prices, the deficit Russia is experiencing is significant, suggesting that these strikes, alongside other measures, are having a tangible financial impact. It’s noted that Russia has already reached half of its projected annual budget deficit in just January, indicating they are “bleeding money.”
Furthermore, there’s a discussion about the broader geopolitical implications and the role of various nations. Some believe that the United States is actively working to undermine Russia’s war funding by seizing tankers, supporting regime changes, and brokering trade deals with countries like India. The question remains whether the US can sustain this pressure and whether Europe will fully align with these efforts.
The difficulty in obtaining clear, unbiased information on the conflict is also a recurring theme. The idea of local media being deployed to the front lines to control narratives, such as attributing damage to falling debris from downed drones rather than direct strikes, is brought up. This points to the challenges of verifying information in a conflict zone.
There’s also a noticeable lack of consistent Ukrainian war news in some media cycles, leading to a hope for the war’s swift conclusion and a future where historians and experts can thoroughly document its aftermath. The desire to pass down lessons from such conflicts to future generations, with a strong admonishment against repeating the mistakes of war, is a powerful undercurrent.
The effectiveness of sanctions and the impact of domestic attacks on Russia’s economy are also debated. Despite sanctions, a protracted war, and now numerous attacks, some find it perplexing that Russia’s economy hasn’t completely collapsed, leading to a desire to understand what it will ultimately take to end the conflict.
There’s a perspective that while Ukraine has been successful in targeting Russian infrastructure, Ukraine’s own energy infrastructure has also been heavily targeted and largely erased. This highlights the reciprocal nature of the conflict and the devastating impact on civilian infrastructure on both sides.
The ongoing nature of the conflict and the potential for escalation remain a concern. The idea of starting a “bigger war” is considered, but with apprehension. The discussion also touches upon the shifting alliances and the reliability of international support, with particular scrutiny on the US’s commitment to Ukraine.
The perception of European inaction or slower progress in fully decoupling from Russian energy is a point of contention. While acknowledging the complexities of energy transitions, there’s frustration that Europe continues to buy Russian oil and gas, effectively funding the very war machine that is threatening Ukraine’s existence. Quotes from President Zelenskyy are used to emphasize the urgency and the perceived lack of decisive action from some European nations.
The economic strain on Russia is also linked to its military spending, which is seen as consuming its private industries and depleting its sovereign wealth reserves. Inflation rates are also a significant concern, pointing to a deteriorating economic situation for Russia.
Despite the economic challenges and the impact of sanctions and strikes, there’s a recognition that some autocratic regimes can endure significant hardship for extended periods, raising the question of how long Russia can maintain its current course. However, there’s also a doubt that the Russian population would tolerate living standards comparable to those in countries like North Korea.
The debate about Europe’s energy dependence on Russia is complex. While Europe is taking steps to diversify its energy sources, the process is slow and faces significant challenges. The argument is made that a rapid decoupling could lead to economic chaos, which could then be exploited by far-right or opportunistic political factions to undermine support for Ukraine.
Ultimately, the drone strike on the Volgograd oil refinery serves as a potent reminder of the ongoing conflict and the multifaceted strategies being employed. It underscores the interconnectedness of military action, economic pressure, and geopolitical maneuvering in the pursuit of ending the war and fostering a more stable future.