Why Should the West Back Ukraine’s Strikes on Russian Refineries?
The argument for supporting Ukraine’s campaign against Russian oil refineries goes far beyond the battlefield. As noted by Volodymyr Kuznetsov, a communications specialist and expert at the United Ukraine Think Tank, in his article for The Gaze, the issue extends far beyond Kyiv’s military tactics – it represents a matter of sound economic logic, adherence to international law, and strategic foresight.
Kuznetsov stated that each disabled facility deprives Moscow of export revenues that sustain its war economy, while sparing civilians and avoiding violations of international norms. The campaign is precision economic warfare aimed at dismantling the core of Russia’s financial engine.
For the United States, the results are twofold: higher energy export revenues and an expanded geopolitical role as a stabilizing supplier to Europe. For the European Union, the strikes accelerate diversification, reducing dependence on Russian fossil fuels and shielding European consumers from Kremlin leverage. Both sides of the Atlantic stand to gain from a more secure and transparent global energy market.
Sanctions alone have weakened but not crippled Russia’s economy. The country has adapted through opaque trade networks and its so-called “shadow fleet” of tankers, rerouting oil flows under false flags and shell companies. But coordinated military and diplomatic actions, targeting refineries and tightening maritime controls, achieve what sanctions by themselves cannot.
“By combining military strikes with diplomatic coordination and stricter control over the "shadow fleet," the West can do what sanctions alone cannot: transform the RF's energy sector from a source of financing aggression into its chronic vulnerability,” Kuznetsov stated.
Moscow’s own reactions reveal the depth of the problem. In a bid to stabilize domestic fuel prices, the Russian government has introduced partial export bans on diesel and gasoline.
Skeptics warn that strikes on Russian refineries could destabilize global markets. In reality, Kuznetsov argued, modern energy systems are far more resilient. The U.S., the Middle East, and even emerging producers in Africa and Asia can quickly fill the supply gap. The market’s elasticity ensures that disruptions in Russian refining translate not into shortages, but into redistribution of supply.
Moreover, Ukraine’s strategy deliberately avoids civilian or neutral infrastructure. The targets are military-linked facilities, logistics nodes, and export terminals that directly fund aggression – not assets that serve the global civilian market.
For the US and EU, the lesson is clear: allowing Ukraine to continue this campaign is not enough – they should actively support it. Military aid must be complemented by diplomatic coordination, intelligence sharing, and enhanced maritime enforcement. The result would be a safer Europe, a more resilient global market, and a Kremlin deprived of its most potent weapon: the steady flow of petrodollars that fuels its wars.
Read the full article on The Gaze: Why Ukraine Should be Allowed to Attack Russian Oil Refineries – Benefits for the US and EU