Ukraine's strikes expose the hidden weaknesses in Russia's oil and fuel network

The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

Ukraine's attacks on Russian refineries and export facilities have triggered a fuel crisis while exposing deeper weaknesses in Russia's oil logistics network. The strikes have revealed limited spare capacity, ageing infrastructure and vulnerabilities likely to outlast the war.

What the strikes have exposed

Ukraine's drone campaign against Russian refineries, terminals and ports has done more than remove capacity for days or weeks. It has exposed how quickly damage to a limited number of facilities can spread through the wider fuel system, affecting refinery output, export flows, regional distribution and prices.

The refinery fires, queues and fuel sales restrictions are the immediate story. The more significant one is the vulnerability beneath them: a network whose major production, transport and export routes are concentrated around a relatively small number of hubs, with little spare capacity available when several parts of the system are disrupted simultaneously.

That weakness predates the war. The attacks have not created Russia's logistical constraints, ageing asset base or increasingly challenging resource profile. Instead, they have made those pressures visible and forced the state to manage them under wartime conditions.

A network built around chokepoints

The strikes have been effective not only because they damaged valuable assets, but because they targeted facilities that handle a disproportionate share of Russia's refining and export activity. Primorsk and Ust-Luga are among the country's most important Baltic petroleum hubs, while a relatively small number of refineries process a large share of the fuel required by domestic consumers and export markets.

When one of these hubs is disrupted, the consequences do not remain local. A damaged terminal can slow rail deliveries, constrain refinery operations, force cargoes towards alternative ports and increase pressure on pipelines already operating close to their practical limits. Reuters reported in May that higher crude exports through Russia's western ports were pushing the Transneft system close to infrastructure capacity, leaving limited room for further expansion.

• Ukraine and Russia exchange strikes as refineries hit in drone attacks
• EU readies 20th round of sanctions targeting Russian energy and war machine

Russia is not without alternative routes. It can redirect cargoes between Baltic, Black Sea, Arctic and Far Eastern ports, adjust refinery throughput and make greater use of rail. However, rerouting is neither immediate nor cost-free. Different terminals handle different products, rail capacity is finite, tanker requirements vary and vast distances magnify every delay.

The vulnerability, therefore, is not the absence of redundancy. Rather, it is that the available alternatives are often slower, more expensive and unable to replace the full capacity of a major hub at short notice. An attacker does not need to destroy the entire system. Repeatedly disrupting a small number of critical nodes can be enough to create cascading effects elsewhere.

Managing shortages without removing vulnerability

Moscow's response has gone beyond strengthening air defences and waiting for the attacks to stop. The government has ordered refineries to maximise utilisation, accelerate or reschedule maintenance and restore damaged units more quickly. It has drawn on fuel reserves, restricted some exports, considered imports and established a task force to monitor supply, prices and regional distribution.

These measures matter. They can prevent local shortages from becoming more severe, protect essential services and buy time for repairs. However, they mainly manage the consequences of disruption rather than reducing the underlying concentration of refining, transport and export infrastructure.

Building a system capable of absorbing repeated strikes without wider disruption would require years of investment in additional storage, alternative pipeline links, greater rail capacity, regional distribution facilities and better-protected terminals. Such projects are expensive even in peacetime. Under sanctions, labour shortages and heavy military spending, they become harder still.

Russia can improve the protection of individual sites and restore damaged equipment. Creating genuine system-wide resilience is a far larger undertaking.

Reserves, export controls and priority sectors

The government's recent decisions illustrate the difference between crisis management and structural reform. In late June, President Vladimir Putin said petrol reserves stood at 1.7 million metric tonnes and were being used to bridge the shortfall. He expected July production to exceed June's while acknowledging that a complete ban on diesel exports was under consideration.

The diesel debate also exposed divisions within the government. Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak had earlier said that a full export ban was not yet necessary. Interfax later reported that the option remained under review and that officials had postponed a final decision while monitoring the market.

Putin also confirmed that a dedicated task force was working continuously on fuel supply and called for systemic measures matching the scale of the problem. The government instructed refineries to accelerate repairs, increase production and assess the level of imports required. By mid-July, it was also prioritising fuel supplies for vehicles serving major food retailers as shortages spread and output remained under pressure.

• Ukraine targets Russian shipping and oil facilities as Moscow steps up strikes
• Fire brought under control at Russia's Tuapse oil refinery

Agriculture has been treated as a sector to protect rather than one expected to absorb the first cuts. The Kremlin has repeatedly emphasised the need to maintain seasonal deliveries to farms during the harvest. If supplies must be rationed, the burden is more likely to fall on exports and less essential domestic consumption before disrupting food production and distribution.

Reserve drawdowns, export controls and priority allocation can stabilise the market. They cannot, by themselves, change the way fuel moves across a country whose size and regional imbalances make logistics exceptionally demanding.

A Soviet inheritance under modern pressure

Much of Russia's present oil infrastructure reflects Soviet-era planning. Pipelines, railways, refineries and ports were built primarily to connect major production areas with industrial centres and export routes. They were not designed to withstand a sustained campaign of long-range precision attacks against energy infrastructure.

Post-Soviet Russia expanded production, modernised parts of the refining sector and developed new export corridors, including routes towards Asia. Yet much of the underlying system still depends on large, centralised assets and lengthy transport networks. That model is efficient when major facilities operate normally. It becomes far less forgiving when several are damaged simultaneously.

The war has transformed a long-standing efficiency issue into a security problem. Infrastructure that once appeared merely concentrated now presents an obvious set of targets. Routes that functioned adequately under commercial conditions may offer too little flexibility under sustained attack.

This does not mean Russia's oil system is collapsing. It means the cost of keeping it operating is rising while the margin for absorbing additional shocks is narrowing.

Two problems the war did not create

Wartime damage has been layered on top of two slower-moving pressures that no ceasefire would remove.

The first is environmental. A significant share of Russia's northern energy infrastructure is built on permafrost. As the ground warms and thaws, the risk of subsidence, deformation and structural failure increases for roads, railways, pipelines, buildings and industrial facilities. Peer-reviewed research has estimated that 45 per cent of hydrocarbon extraction fields in the Russian Arctic are located in areas where thaw-related ground instability could cause severe damage by the middle of the century.

This does not mean Russian pipelines are collapsing because of climate change. It does mean that maintaining and expanding infrastructure in northern regions will become more difficult and expensive, particularly where it was designed for more stable ground conditions.

The second pressure is geological and technological. Many of Russia's largest and least expensive conventional oilfields are mature. Future production will increasingly depend on depleted, waterlogged, remote or technically complex reserves. Russian officials have estimated that roughly 60 per cent of the country's reserves fall into hard-to-recover, depleted or otherwise challenging categories, while only around half of total reserves may be profitable under current market conditions.

Hard-to-recover does not mean impossible to produce. Russia possesses considerable technical expertise and has already developed many complex fields. However, such production generally requires greater investment, more advanced drilling and reservoir management technologies, and reliable access to specialised equipment. Sanctions and restrictions on technology transfer make this increasingly difficult.

New production will also place greater pressure on infrastructure across remote parts of Siberia and the Arctic, where labour, housing, roads, rail links and pipelines are expensive to build and maintain. These are structural challenges rather than problems that disappear once refinery fires are extinguished.

Where this leaves Russia

Taken together, the evidence does not point to a temporary disruption that will simply disappear once damaged refineries are repaired. Nor does it justify claims that Russia's entire oil logistics system has collapsed.

• Russia prioritises fuel for food deliveries as shortages cut deep
• Iran war and jet fuel concerns cloud airlines’ summer holiday plans

A more accurate conclusion is that Ukraine's strikes have exposed a system operating with less flexibility than its scale suggests. The network can reroute cargoes, accelerate repairs and draw on reserves, but repeated attacks force increasingly expensive trade-offs between domestic supply, exports, refinery output and regional distribution.

Moscow's immediate measures may contain the crisis. They do not remove the concentration of major hubs, the limited spare capacity within transport networks, the maintenance burden of ageing infrastructure or the long-term challenge of producing increasingly difficult reserves in harsher environments.

Building genuine resilience would require the slow, expensive and politically unglamorous work of expanding storage, creating alternative transport routes, increasing regional capacity and protecting critical infrastructure. So far, the government has understandably focused on keeping fuel moving from one week to the next.

That may be enough to prevent a nationwide breakdown. It is unlikely to eliminate the vulnerability Ukraine has exposed. As long as the war continues, Russia's fuel network will remain a strategic target whose importance far exceeds the physical size of the facilities being struck. Even after the war ends, the deeper structural pressures within that network will remain.

Tags

Ukraine Russia Oil War oil refinery