By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States formally warned Ukraine following a drone strike on a Russian oil terminal in Novorossiysk, as the facility handles Kazakh oil in which American economic interests, specifically through Chevron, are invested. Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington confirmed receiving an official diplomatic notice from the State Department stating that attacks affecting American economic interests should be refrained from, though Ukraine was not asked to cease general attacks on Russian military or energy infrastructure. This strike, part of a larger Ukrainian drone operation, reportedly damaged oil-loading terminals and air-defense systems, drawing a protest from Kazakhstan regarding its impact on global energy stability.
Read the original article here
The recent news that the United States is warning Ukraine about strikes on the Novorossiysk oil hub, particularly when Chevron operations were involved, has sparked considerable debate and raised some pointed questions about priorities and consistency. It seems the core of the issue lies in the perception that official channels are more concerned with the financial implications for American corporations than with Ukraine’s ongoing struggle for survival.
One could easily infer that if a company like Chevron chooses to operate in a region experiencing active conflict, it implicitly accepts the risk of encountering “combat losses.” The straightforward, albeit blunt, suggestion is that the most effective way to mitigate such risks for any business would be to cease operations within Russia or its territories perceived as aligned with it.
Furthermore, a compelling argument can be made that the U.S. would better serve its own interests by unequivocally urging Russia to withdraw from Ukraine. The current situation appears to many as a peculiar double standard, where Ukraine is being admonished for potentially impacting a business, while there’s a notable silence when Russia targets American businesses operating within Ukraine itself.
The input highlights several instances of Russian attacks on U.S. businesses in Ukraine, such as the recent strike on a Mondelez warehouse. It also recalls earlier strikes on facilities belonging to companies like Pepsi and Coca-Cola at the outset of the war. The apparent lack of strong U.S. warnings to Russia in these cases, contrasted with the warning to Ukraine over the Novorossiysk incident, leads to a perceived pattern that is difficult to ignore.
A significant point of contention is why the U.S. continues to engage with Russia under these circumstances, especially when American business interests are being jeopardized by Russian aggression. The question arises: why isn’t the U.S. issuing similar warnings to Russia concerning attacks that directly undermine American business interests within Ukraine?
The logic presented suggests that if a food warehouse associated with a U.S. ally is deemed a legitimate target by some interpretation, then a Chevron-aligned oil refinery should similarly be viewed as a legitimate target for Ukraine. This perspective frames the U.S. warning as essentially saying, “Defend yourselves, but only if it doesn’t inconvenience our corporate investments.”
There’s a palpable sense of embarrassment and frustration with this perceived stance, with sentiments expressed that instead of undermining allies and democracies, the U.S. should focus on pressuring Russia. The idea of prioritizing business opportunities in a post-sanctions Russia seems to overshadow the larger geopolitical stakes.
A fundamental question repeatedly surfaces: why is Chevron, or any U.S. company for that matter, still conducting business in Russia? The notion of prosecuting a war or making strategic decisions based on the potential impact on corporate entities is also challenged, especially when considering that Ukraine is in a desperate fight for its very existence.
The absence of any U.S. warnings to Russia following attacks on American companies in Ukraine is starkly contrasted with the warning issued to Ukraine. This inconsistency fuels the feeling that U.S. policy is not prioritizing the security and sovereignty of Ukraine, but rather the financial well-being of its corporations.
The argument is made that if Russian attacks on U.S. companies in Ukraine elicit no response, then Ukraine’s defensive actions that might incidentally affect such companies should also be met with understanding, not admonishment. The idea that the U.S. “doesn’t give a f***” about Russian strikes on American companies in Ukraine, while acting swiftly to warn Ukraine, is a recurring theme.
The comparison drawn between the perceived lack of concern over Russian attacks on U.S. businesses and the swift warning over potential costs to a major corporation like Chevron is striking. It paints a picture where the financial losses of a faceless corporation are given more weight than the lives and struggles of Ukrainians.
The question of why U.S. companies are still operating in Russia is a critical one, suggesting that these companies voluntarily took on the risks associated with their operations and should therefore bear the consequences. The focus on protecting shareholder profits, even at the cost of potential diplomatic fallout or appearing to abandon an ally, is seen as deeply problematic.
The disparity between warnings about corporate financial losses and the lack of similar emphasis on providing longer-range weapons or funds for Ukraine is noted. The suggestion that Ukraine should prioritize the safety and independence of its nation over the profits of oil companies like Chevron is a powerful one, resonating with a sense of national self-determination.
The notion that Chevron might be violating sanctions, or that operating in Russia is ethically questionable, further complicates the narrative. The idea that diplomatic demarches are being deployed for corporate assets, while the reality of war is “hell” for those on the ground, highlights a perceived disconnect.
The sentiment that Ukraine is demonstrating strength and resilience, while certain political factions within the U.S. might be seen as undermining allies, is also present. The continued operation of U.S. companies in Russia is framed by some as being in bed with the Russian war effort, a stark contrast to calls for sanctions and pressure on Russia.
Ultimately, the core of this complex situation appears to revolve around a perceived prioritization of corporate interests over the existential threat faced by Ukraine. The warnings issued to Ukraine in this context are seen by many as misdirected, highlighting a need for greater clarity, consistency, and a reaffirmation of core values in international relations, particularly when facing overt aggression.