By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On June 16, Ukraine successfully targeted the Moscow Oil Refinery in Kapotnya, a move President Volodymyr Zelensky stated was a “just response” to Russian aggression and a means to exert pressure for ending the war. While Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin reported 25 drones destroyed over the city and minor damage to a facility, Ukraine’s General Staff confirmed a fire at the refinery’s ELOU-AVT-6 oil processing unit. This attack, which involved several Ukrainian security and intelligence agencies, follows a significant Russian assault on Kyiv the previous day. The refinery’s disruption also led to Tatneft restricting fuel sales across Russia.
Read the original article here
It’s certainly a stark contrast when we see reports of a major oil refinery near Moscow being hit, with Ukrainian President Zelensky confirming it as a direct response to Russian strikes. This development immediately brings to mind earlier incidents, like the reported attack on a church, highlighting a tit-for-tat escalation that feels increasingly inevitable in this conflict. The narrative unfolding suggests that Ukraine is engaging in what they perceive as a justified retaliation, striking at significant Russian assets.
The idea that this is a “just response to Russian strikes” is central to understanding Ukraine’s actions. When one side initiates attacks, especially those impacting civilian infrastructure or places of worship, the other side feels compelled to react. In this case, the target wasn’t just any facility; it was a major oil refinery, an asset of immense economic and strategic importance to Russia. It’s the kind of target that carries symbolic weight, signaling that Ukraine can reach deep into Russian territory and inflict damage on critical infrastructure.
One can only imagine the internal discussions within the Russian military command. How do you explain to President Putin that not only were Ukrainian drones able to penetrate Russian airspace and strike a major industrial facility, but that these strikes are framed as direct retaliation for Russian actions? The notion of Russia claiming victory while acknowledging that its own refineries are being hit, with drones reportedly being intercepted and destroyed over them, paints a rather peculiar picture of “winning.” It’s akin to someone claiming they are victorious while acknowledging they are bleeding.
Ukraine has clearly identified what they consider a “target-rich environment” within Russia. The sentiment expressed is one of encouragement to “hit them hard and don’t stop hitting them!” This reflects a desire to inflict significant and sustained damage on Russia’s war-making capabilities and its economic backbone. The imagery of “black rain in Moscow” is certainly evocative and suggests a considerable impact, a far cry from what one might expect from a minor incident.
A pertinent question arises regarding the actual damage inflicted by such strikes. Refineries are massive complexes, and the severity of the impact can range dramatically. While some damage might be superficial and quickly repaired, a hit to critical components like distillation columns could render the facility inoperable for months, if not years, due to the difficulty and time required to replace such specialized equipment. The fact that gas sales might be affected or limited could be a subtle indicator that the damage is indeed significant and not easily dismissed.
The confirmation that these were Ukrainian drones hitting the refinery is significant. The adoration for these drones, with people expressing their love and wishing for more such actions, underscores the symbolic victory and the psychological impact such strikes can have. The call for President Zelensky to “do MORE!” signifies a strong public sentiment within Ukraine and among its supporters for a more aggressive and impactful response.
There’s a distinct difference being drawn between the nature of the Russian attacks and the Ukrainian response. The Ukrainian strike is being characterized as a “decent response, which unlike the Russian attack didn’t involve war crimes.” This highlights the moral and ethical considerations that are being brought into play, with accusations that Russia’s actions are increasingly crossing lines into what are widely condemned as war crimes, while Ukraine aims to portray its actions as more targeted and less indiscriminate.
The predictable Russian response is often to label such actions as “terrorism.” However, the context provided suggests a deliberate targeting of military or economic infrastructure, distinct from attacks on civilian populations or cultural sites. The cynical observation that Russia “do pray to a god of oil” suggests a certain hypocrisy or irony in their condemnation of strikes on their energy sector. It certainly leads one to question “who the bad guys are” when looking at the broader picture of the conflict and the escalating nature of attacks.
The discussions around the effectiveness of anti-aircraft defenses are also noteworthy. The idea that while the drones themselves are not feared, the debris from intercepted drones can cause fear, is a peculiar statement. It hints at the psychological warfare aspect of these drone strikes. Furthermore, the speculative and often absurd explanations for incidents, like a “stupid mechanic was smoking next to the fuel lines” or blaming fictitious figures, reveal a pattern of attempting to deflect blame and avoid acknowledging the strategic successes of the adversary.
The idea that Russia might blame external forces, such as “Gay satanist libs from EU,” for such incidents underscores a pattern of deflecting responsibility and employing conspiracy theories. The humorous suggestion that patriotic oil depots are willingly taking hits for the Motherland, or the comparison of Russia to the character Wimp Lo from “Kung Fu Hustle,” highlights the widespread perception of Russia’s defensive posture as somewhat comical or inept.
The technical details of refinery damage are complex, with the possibility of quick repairs for pipework contrasting sharply with the prolonged downtime required if a critical vessel like a distillation column is compromised. This uncertainty about the true extent of the damage, coupled with the difficulty of penetrating Moscow with cruise missiles, makes drone strikes on facilities like refineries a seemingly more feasible and impactful option for Ukraine. The frustration with Russia’s reactive and often defensive pronouncements about Ukraine’s actions is palpable, with a yearning for Russia to show more “dignity” and less of a “bitchboy” response.
The assertion that “this whole SMO is just a ukrainian fabrication to make russia look bad on the world stage” is a clear example of the sarcastic tone often employed when discussing Russia’s justifications for its actions. The underlying sentiment is that the world sees through these narratives. Ultimately, the strike on the Moscow oil refinery, confirmed by President Zelensky as a direct response, represents a significant escalation and a clear signal that Ukraine possesses the capability and the will to strike at the heart of Russia’s economic and strategic interests.