By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This strategy aims to cripple Russia’s war capabilities and sow widespread disruption among its populace. The ultimate objective is to exert significant pressure on President Vladimir Putin, thereby compelling him to engage in peace negotiations.
Read the original article here
Fuel sales have reportedly been halted in occupied Crimea, a development that appears to be a direct consequence of Ukraine’s ongoing targeting of Russian oil facilities. This strategic approach is designed to impact the Russian civilian population not by inciting their anger towards Ukraine, but rather by fostering frustration with their own government’s failures.
In contrast to the brutal tactics employed by Russia during its invasion, such as widespread civilian murders, child abductions, and the leveling of entire cities, Ukraine’s actions are perceived as a calculated effort to degrade Russia’s war-making capabilities without inflicting the same level of psychological trauma on the general population. The intent seems to be to create a sense of inconvenience and disruption that fuels discontent with the Kremlin.
The impact of these strikes is becoming increasingly visible, with reports of Moscow residents experiencing disruptions like cars covered in oil and soot from refinery incidents, and the cancellation of summer holidays. These are significant but not world-shattering events. The goal appears to be generating anger directed at the Russian government, rather than a thirst for revenge against Ukraine. The logic suggests that cancelled holidays and minor inconveniences are unlikely to motivate individuals to enlist for front-line combat.
Ukraine’s strategy of targeting strategic infrastructure, such as refineries and factories, along with shipping facilities, serves a dual purpose. It not only hinders Russia’s logistical capabilities but also creates a ripple effect of domestic dissatisfaction. The closure of airports, initially for safety reasons and subsequently due to a lack of jet fuel, exemplifies this multifaceted impact.
This approach is a stark contrast to the motivations that drive Ukrainian resistance. Russia’s invasion provided Ukraine with a profound and undeniable motive to fight fiercely for their survival. The current actions by Ukraine are thus seen as a sophisticated method to erode Russian public support for the war, encouraging a sentiment of “Go on Home Russian soldiers, go on home!”
The idea is to disrupt the Russian war machine at its core, a necessary first step to achieving their eventual withdrawal from Ukrainian territory. For some observers, the effectiveness of this strategy is so pronounced that it leads to questions of why Ukraine might be perceived as being “mean” to Russia, a sentiment potentially echoed by the average Russian citizen unaware of the broader context.
The logistical challenges for Russians wishing to express their discontent, such as the arduous walk from Sevastopol to Krasnodar, underscore the disconnect between the Kremlin’s actions and the realities faced by its citizens. This ongoing pressure on Russian infrastructure is seen as a critical element in their overall war effort.
The notion that “If Ukraine burns, your Moscow burns” reflects a sense of shared consequence, even if the methods of infliction differ. The consistent message from supporters is to “Keep it up Ukraine! Pummel those fuel deliveries!” and to maintain these actions for the ultimate goal of peace.
Interestingly, some insights suggest that this strategic targeting might not be a grand, overarching plan devised in isolation, but rather an emergent consequence of a system that gamifies warfare. Ukraine has reportedly implemented a scoring system where hitting strategic points, including resource facilities, yields high scores. This incentivizes brigades to focus on these targets, potentially leading to a feedback loop where success breeds further resource allocation for more drone attacks on similar sites.
The confirmation of points for scoring often involves drone footage, leading to an abundance of visual evidence of these strikes. This system appears to be highly effective, with brigades best at their jobs receiving the most crucial equipment, minimizing waste and maximizing efficiency. This innovative approach to resource allocation and combat incentive is reportedly being closely observed by European nations.
The impact on occupied Crimea, in particular, highlights the effectiveness of this strategy. The targeting of fuel facilities directly affects the availability of essential resources, leading to the cessation of fuel sales. This is not an isolated incident but part of a larger, sustained effort to strain Russian logistics across the board.
The implementation of such infrastructure targeting typically requires time to manifest its full impact on troop movement and supply lines, indicating that the current disruptions are just the beginning. The perceived “gamification” of war, with points awarded for destroying tanks, drones, and infrastructure, is a striking departure from traditional warfare, turning combat into a competitive endeavor.
The idea that Ukraine needs to “blow up the domes in the Kremlin” and “cut off the supply of botox/lip-injections” reflects a desire for symbolic victories and a complete capitulation of the Russian leadership, suggesting that the current actions are seen as significant but not the ultimate end to the conflict.
The Russian population’s living conditions, often in communal blocks where sunlight is scarce, might influence their reaction to disruptions, but the strategy aims to create inconveniences that directly impact their daily lives and their perception of the government’s competence. The influx of Russian citizens into occupied territories since 2014, a process of Russification, adds another layer of complexity, aiming to solidify control and alter demographics.
The fact that Ukraine’s system is becoming a model for future warfare, with European countries eager to learn from its innovations, underscores the significance of these developments. The current US administration’s reluctance to engage closely with Ukraine in this regard is seen as a missed opportunity for a nation at the forefront of evolving combat strategies. Ultimately, the halting of fuel sales in Crimea and the broader targeting of oil facilities represent a powerful symbol of Putin’s diminishing control and a testament to Ukraine’s innovative and impactful approach to defending its sovereignty.