In less than a year, the Ukrainian drones caused shutdowns at more than half of the large refineries in Russia-a turn of events few military analysts predicted when the war began. The fire on November 11, 2025, at Saratov’s Rosneft-operated plant-which can handle 20,000 metric tons of crude daily-was part of a sustained campaign reaching deep into Russian territory hundreds of miles away. This new phase of the conflict has laid bare the vulnerability of energy infrastructure once thought beyond the reach of battlefield operations.
It does, however, show how Ukraine’s approach is reforming the greater operational environment for both belligerents. The refineries, terminals, and fuel depots that have come under attack reveal that Kyiv is forcing Moscow into costly economic and political trade-offs beyond disrupting military logistics. The result was a high-stakes duel in which low-cost drones were challenging billion-dollar assets, with the rules of industrial warfare being rewritten.
1. Saratov Refinery: A Symbol of Strategic Vulnerability
The Saratov refinery, only 600 kilometers away from the front lines, used to harbor an illusion of safety. That ended in November after seven strikes over eleven months, ending with a blaze that shut down its CDU-6 distillation unit. Russia said it had intercepted 37 drones that night, but the plant burned, forcing the closure of the local airport. Every day the facility stays offline, Russia loses more than 13,000 metric tons of processing capacity, tens of millions in lost revenues, and fuel shortages for both military and civilian consumers.
2. Coordinated Multi-Front Strikes
The strike on Saratov came in the same day hits reached Crimea’s Sea Oil Terminal and military warehouses in occupied Donetsk, across 600 kilometers of contested airspace. Satellite imagery confirmed damage to critical fuel storage in Saratov; meanwhile, tight rationing was instituted in Crimea: 20 liters per driver. Synchronization shows a capability of Ukraine to interfere with logistics across a number of theaters at once, complicating further the process of Russian repair and resupply.
3. Pace of refinery attacks recorded
Verified analysis puts the number of Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy targets-as of August-at least 58, of which 29 hit refineries. The number in August alone was 14, the highest so far. Plants deep inside the Russian interior, such as Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat in Bashkortostan 1,100 kilometres from the border, have been hit repeatedly. The pace keeps plants in constant need of repair, stretching spare-parts supply chains already strained by sanctions.
4. Economic Fallout and Civilian Hardship
Fuel shortage has driven a 10 percent jump in pump prices as diesel scarcity hits agriculture and transport. The scarcity is manifested in long queues at the filling stations and shutdowns of independent garages-particularly in Siberia. Independent retailers, which supply most of the countryside, took a disproportionate hit as major oil companies focus on filling their own filling stations. Such economic pressure does risk eroding public support for the war, a concern the Kremlin tries to manage through subsidies and export bans.
5. Defensive Adaptations of Russia
In response, Moscow issued sweeping legislation that can mobilize as many as 2 million reservists to stand guard over key sites and has implemented electronic countermeasures, including a 24-hour cooling-off period for new SIM cards that can serve to interrupt drone telemetry. Other physical defenses include improvised netting over refinery units. These may deflect some such attacks, but not all targets can be covered; so Russia has to pick and choose which facilities to protect.
6. The Attrition Logic of Industrial Warfare
Strikes achieve cumulative deterioration in refinery units due to heating and cooling cycles wearing down the equipment over time. This long-run decline cannot be arrested, even with the most rapid repairs. Soviet-era regional duopolies mean that when one plant goes offline, shortages ripple across several oblasts; this has necessitated rail shipments from far-away refineries at great cost. Ukraine’s campaign exploits this structural vulnerability.
7. Energy war as retaliation and deterrence
Kyiv’s strikes have emulated the earlier Russian campaign against Ukrainian energy assets. President Volodymyr Zelensky hailed refinery fires as “the most effective sanctions” on Russia’s war effort. It is by imposing similar costs that Ukraine hopes to deter further Russian attacks on its grid, or force an informal moratorium on energy strikes, though thus far escalation has been the result.
8. Expanding the Target set
Besides refineries, Ukraine has hit pumping stations, pipelines and export terminals, such as those of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium at Novorossiysk. Operations have also damaged non-Russian vessels carrying Russian crude, probably via limpet mines. These manifest an attempt to impose uncertainty on Russia’s export logistics and discourage third-party trade partners.
9. Russia’s Strategic Dilemma
Moscow must make a decision: whether to protect refineries or armament plants, to export or supply the domestic market, and to invest scarce resources in rapid repairs or alternative military uses. Each decision closes off alternative policy directions. High-handed state management through fixed margins, quotas, and emergency decrees keeps immediate shortages at bay but undermines long-term efficiency.
10. Global Market Ripples
Oil prices rose by 2 percent after the November strikes, while Russia’s exports fell by over 17 percent during peak disruptions. Western sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil add further strain. Even though crude exports have remained mainly unaffected, the loss of revenue brought in by refined products-at as high as $10 per barrel-tightens margins and constrains Moscow’s flexibility in maintaining military expenditure. Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign underlines a basic truth: in modern war, infrastructure remote from the front line is often as vulnerable as battlefield supplies. These attacks also erode both operational capacity and political stability by forcing Russia into relentless crisis management. The energy infrastructure duel is not about some sort of one-blow knock-out but about sustained pressure that erodes resilience. It is an attritional contest likely to shape the war well into the coming winter and beyond.
