The war between Russia and Ukraine has shifted, and it extends far beyond the front lines. Over the past few months, Ukraine has accelerated its assault on Russia’s energy economy—and its oil refineries, in particular—using swarms of drone and missile launches to attack a cornerstone pillar of the Russian economy and military effort. This shift is more than a shifting of strategy; it is a deliberate tactic to harmonize technological innovation, economic pressure, and psychological warfare to meet a far superior enemy on multiple fronts.
Ukraine’s attack on Russian oil targets has increased significantly since the beginning of 2024. It has been said that nearly 10 percent of Russia’s refining capacity was removed from operation, and dozens of plants have been attacked around the country. A few of the strikes have been hundreds of miles in the rear, as far east as Izhevsk, Moscow, and the Engels air base.
From targeting refineries that feed the regional fuel market to targeting plants directly connected to the military supply chain, the approach of Ukraine has altered in scope and sophistication. Its firepower increasingly relies on a huge stockpile of longer-range missiles and drones—most of them made and designed domestically, a testament to the determination of Ukraine to press on with the campaign without wholly depending on foreign arms.
The damage inflicted is purely symbolic. Estimates drawn from many investigations, Russia’s oil industry has incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from the attacks. Satellite photography has validated the extensive damage, with several oil tanks burning and top refineries forced to shut down. Russia’s production of fuel has accordingly taken a huge hit—gasoline and diesel fuel production declined significantly in the first part of the year. Pump prices skyrocketed, and the government was forced to restrict the exportation of fuel to avoid local shortages and outrage.
Simultaneously, Russian oil producers have been burdened with excess crude they cannot process, and this has driven the increased crude exports. However, such a strategy costs: the international market prices crude oil lower than processed products, and thus, firms are making losses while the government attempts to shield its coffers. With reduced profitability, the trickle-down effect may go far beyond the fuel sector.
Russia has not been idle in the face of this new threat. Officials have beefed up refinery protections by sending air defense systems like the Pantsir to installations, and anti-drone netting and shield cables now cover some of them. But the sheer numbers of vulnerable targets—coupled with the reality of limited defense assets—have made it effectively impossible to defend every location. Added to Russia’s difficulties are the West’s sanctions that have made it harder still to acquire spare parts and technical assistance required to repair damaged infrastructure promptly. As a result, much of the sites remained in disarray for months at a time, and Moscow has had to turn to allies like Belarus and Kazakhstan to help shore up its fuel supply.
They have raised alarm among Ukraine’s Western allies. Formally and in Washington and other capitals, senior officials have cautioned in private that a continued assault on Russian energy installations can cause prices to rise on the global market. The worry is that a precipitous reduction in Russian fuel output would help fuel inflation spikes elsewhere, especially at politically inopportune times. Still, even in the presence of such warnings, global oil prices have remained relatively stable. Other factors—Middle Eastern tensions and OPEC+ production decisions—have been more impactful on worldwide prices than Ukrainian strikes, analysts note. The forced increase in Russian crude exports may have even eased prices somewhat by adding supply.
For Ukraine, the benefits of the campaign go beyond the disruption of fuel. These bombings convey a loud message that the war can reach deep inside Russian borders and that Ukraine will and is capable of striking strategic objectives well beyond the lines. It’s not simply a matter of blowing up fuel depots; it’s a matter of eroding Russia’s feelings of security and reminding both the Russian people and the leadership that the war cannot be isolated from everyday life. It’s also a way for Ukraine to demonstrate autonomy. As uncertainty over Western assistance in the years to come grows, Ukraine is investing more in its military industry, aiming to produce tens of thousands of drones and missiles per year.
Ukrainian officials have not shied away from explaining their rationale. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy framed these new missile systems as a leverage factor to pressure for a good and lasting peace. Ukraine’s broader strategy of war now prioritizes long-range strike capability as a key element of its approach, from one entirely defensive in focus to one more offensive, asymmetric.
What’s unfolding is a powerful lesson in the changing nature of warfare. With relatively low-cost drones, Ukraine has managed to throw a wrench into one of Russia’s most vital sectors, compelling it to redirect money, manpower, and materials away from the front lines. It’s a clear example of how a smaller nation, with the right tools and tactics, can punch far above its weight.
But it is not without risk. Ukraine must tiptoe between delivering effective punches and risking unpredictable consequences, like financial meltdown around the world or political backlash among allies. The constantly shifting game of cat-and-mouse between Ukrainian attacks and Russian retaliation will redefine military strategy for the next generation, providing a glimpse into what future war will look li, e—not only with troops and tanks, but with intelligent weapons, economic sabotage, and specific psychological pressure. In this new era of conflict, energy infrastructure is both a vulnerability and an as, et and both realize it.