LONDON: Ukraine is intensifying strikes on Russian refineries and oil infrastructure, with more than 30 attacks since early August, aimed at weakening Moscow’s ability to finance war against its neighbor.
Current consequence?
Russia is the world’s third-largest producer and second-biggest exporter of crude oil. Oil and gas revenues represented about 30 percent of its budget in 2024, or largest source of state funds according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
Kyiv’s attacks have so far been “quite effective,” with Russian refinery production rates having “dropped around 10 percent,” Homayoun Falakshahi, analyst at energy research group Kpler, told AFP.
Faced with a risk of shortages, Moscow recently restricted exports of petroleum products until the end of the year and extended a ban on gasoline exports.
Rystad Energy analyst Janiv Shah said that Russia’s refinery production dropped to an average of 4.9 million barrels per day by mid-September, down about 400,000 bpd compared to the first half of 2025.
The scarcity of Russian refined products has significantly widened the gap between the price of a barrel of Russian crude oil and that of refined products.
The impact on pump prices is already being felt. As of September 1, retail gasoline cost 6.7 percent more compared to the end of 2024, according to Russia’s official statistics agency Rosstat.
This despite a sharp drop in the price of a barrel of crude oil over the same period.
Long-term impact?
Russia’s situation risks worsening because damaged infrastructure typically takes an “extended time” to return to normal operations, Shah explained.
This at a time when revenue from Russian crude oil is primarily affected by falling global prices as markets expect abundant supplies in the coming months.
SEB bank analyst Bjarne Schieldrop believes the “situation will likely become worse... as Ukraine becomes better at attacking Russian refineries,” forecasting an end to exports of all Russian oil products as well as the introduction of domestic rationing.
The US envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has floated the possibility of long-range strikes by Ukraine against Russia using American weapons.
In trying to export some of the oil intended for its refineries Russia has come up against difficult logistical problems, while the number of countries willing to import more of its crude is limited.
Strikes versus sanctions?
So far, international sanctions aimed at weakening Moscow “are not working,” according to Adi Imsirovic, director of the Surrey Clean Energy consultancy.
Delayed implementation of certain sanctions gave Russia’s President Vladimir Putin time “to build a parallel trading system,” he said.
Washington’s doubling of tariffs on many of India’s products has failed to curb the country’s purchase of Russian crude.
On the other hand, with the withdrawal of Western oil companies from Russia, investment in the nation’s energy infrastructure has declined considerably, limiting its ability to increase crude output over the coming years.
Russia, which produces “around 9.25 million barrels per day,” according to Falakshahi, has a “maximum production capacity of 9.45 mbpd” compared to around 10 mbpd before the war.
![]()
Ukraine strikes put pressure on Russian oil
Short Url
https://arab.news/znjgb
Ukraine strikes put pressure on Russian oil
- Russia is the world’s third-largest producer and second-biggest exporter of crude oil
- Oil and gas revenues represented about 30 percent of its budget in 2024
Congress taking first votes on Iran war as debate rages about US goals
- The US Senate is headed toward a vote on President Donald Trump’s decision to embark on a war against Iran
- It’s an extraordinary test in Congress for a conflict that has rapidly spread across the Middle East with no clear US exit strategy
WASHINGTON: The US Senate is headed toward a vote Wednesday on President Donald Trump’s decision to embark on a war against Iran, an extraordinary test in Congress for a conflict that has rapidly spread across the Middle East with no clear US exit strategy.
The legislation, known as a war powers resolution, gives lawmakers an opportunity to demand congressional approval before any further attacks are carried out. The Senate resolution and a similar bill being voted on in the House later this week face unlikely paths through the Republican-controlled Congress and would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump even if they were to pass.
Nonetheless, the votes marked a weighty moment for lawmakers. Their decisions on the five-day-old war — which Trump entered without congressional approval — could determine the fates of US military members, countless other lives and the future of the region.
“Wars without clear objectives do not remain small. They get bigger, bloodier, longer and more expensive,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer at a news conference Tuesday. “This is not a necessary war. It’s a war of choice.”
Trump administration scrambles for congressional support
After launching a surprise attack against Iran on Saturday, Trump has scrambled to win support for a conflict that Americans of all political persuasions were already wary of entering. Trump administration officials have been a frequent presence on Capitol Hill this week as they try to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.
“We are not going to put American troops in harm’s way,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in a raucous news conference at the Capitol Tuesday.
But six US military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait.
Trump has also not ruled out deploying US ground troops. He has said he is hoping to end the bombing campaign within a few weeks, but his goals for the war have shifted from regime change to stopping Iran from developing nuclear capabilities to crippling its navy and missile programs.
“I think they are achieving great success with what they’ve done so far,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday, adding that what happens next in the country will be “largely up to the Iranian people.”
Almost all Republican senators were readying to vote Wednesday against the war powers resolution to halt military action, but a number still expressed hesitation at the idea of deploying troops on the ground in Iran.
“I don’t think the American people want to see troops on the ground,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, as he exited a classified briefing Tuesday. He added that Trump administration officials “left open that possibility,” but it wasn’t an option they were emphasizing.
Lawmakers to go on record
The votes in Congress this week represented potentially consequential markers of just where lawmakers stand on the war as they look ahead to midterm elections and the consequences of the conflict.
“Nobody gets to hide and give the president an easy pass or an end-run around the Constitution,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat leading the war powers resolution. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”
Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts that Trump has entered or threatened to enter. This one, however, is different.
Unlike Trump’s military campaigns against alleged drug boats or even Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the attack on Iran represents an open-ended conflict that is already ricocheting across the region. For Republicans who are used to operating in a political party dominated by Trump and his promises of keeping the US out of foreign entanglements, the moment represented a bit of whiplash.
“War is ugly, it always has been ugly, but we’re taking out a regime that has been trying to attack us for quite some time,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has long pushed Trump to engage overseas, argued that the widening conflict represented an opportunity for Arab and European countries to join in the fight against Iran and the militant groups it supports.
“I don’t mind people being on record as to whether or not they think this is a good idea,” he told reporters, but also argued that too much power over the military was ceded to Congress in the War Powers Act, which mandates that presidents must withdraw troops from a conflict within 90 days if there is no congressional authorization.
House vote looms
On the other side of the Capitol, House leaders were also readying for an intense debate over the war followed by a vote Thursday.
“I do believe we have the votes to defeat it, I certainly hope we do,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said after an all-member briefing on Tuesday night.
Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said he expected a strong showing from Democrats in favor of the war powers resolution.
As lawmakers emerged from a closed-door briefing Tuesday night, Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, implored the Trump administration to “come to Congress” and speak directly to the American people about the rationale for the war.
His voice filled with emotion as he said, “Our young men and women’s lives are on the line.”
The legislation, known as a war powers resolution, gives lawmakers an opportunity to demand congressional approval before any further attacks are carried out. The Senate resolution and a similar bill being voted on in the House later this week face unlikely paths through the Republican-controlled Congress and would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump even if they were to pass.
Nonetheless, the votes marked a weighty moment for lawmakers. Their decisions on the five-day-old war — which Trump entered without congressional approval — could determine the fates of US military members, countless other lives and the future of the region.
“Wars without clear objectives do not remain small. They get bigger, bloodier, longer and more expensive,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer at a news conference Tuesday. “This is not a necessary war. It’s a war of choice.”
Trump administration scrambles for congressional support
After launching a surprise attack against Iran on Saturday, Trump has scrambled to win support for a conflict that Americans of all political persuasions were already wary of entering. Trump administration officials have been a frequent presence on Capitol Hill this week as they try to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.
“We are not going to put American troops in harm’s way,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in a raucous news conference at the Capitol Tuesday.
But six US military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait.
Trump has also not ruled out deploying US ground troops. He has said he is hoping to end the bombing campaign within a few weeks, but his goals for the war have shifted from regime change to stopping Iran from developing nuclear capabilities to crippling its navy and missile programs.
“I think they are achieving great success with what they’ve done so far,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday, adding that what happens next in the country will be “largely up to the Iranian people.”
Almost all Republican senators were readying to vote Wednesday against the war powers resolution to halt military action, but a number still expressed hesitation at the idea of deploying troops on the ground in Iran.
“I don’t think the American people want to see troops on the ground,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, as he exited a classified briefing Tuesday. He added that Trump administration officials “left open that possibility,” but it wasn’t an option they were emphasizing.
Lawmakers to go on record
The votes in Congress this week represented potentially consequential markers of just where lawmakers stand on the war as they look ahead to midterm elections and the consequences of the conflict.
“Nobody gets to hide and give the president an easy pass or an end-run around the Constitution,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat leading the war powers resolution. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”
Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts that Trump has entered or threatened to enter. This one, however, is different.
Unlike Trump’s military campaigns against alleged drug boats or even Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the attack on Iran represents an open-ended conflict that is already ricocheting across the region. For Republicans who are used to operating in a political party dominated by Trump and his promises of keeping the US out of foreign entanglements, the moment represented a bit of whiplash.
“War is ugly, it always has been ugly, but we’re taking out a regime that has been trying to attack us for quite some time,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has long pushed Trump to engage overseas, argued that the widening conflict represented an opportunity for Arab and European countries to join in the fight against Iran and the militant groups it supports.
“I don’t mind people being on record as to whether or not they think this is a good idea,” he told reporters, but also argued that too much power over the military was ceded to Congress in the War Powers Act, which mandates that presidents must withdraw troops from a conflict within 90 days if there is no congressional authorization.
House vote looms
On the other side of the Capitol, House leaders were also readying for an intense debate over the war followed by a vote Thursday.
“I do believe we have the votes to defeat it, I certainly hope we do,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said after an all-member briefing on Tuesday night.
Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said he expected a strong showing from Democrats in favor of the war powers resolution.
As lawmakers emerged from a closed-door briefing Tuesday night, Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, implored the Trump administration to “come to Congress” and speak directly to the American people about the rationale for the war.
His voice filled with emotion as he said, “Our young men and women’s lives are on the line.”
Latest updates
© 2026 SAUDI RESEARCH & PUBLISHING COMPANY, All Rights Reserved And subject to Terms of Use Agreement.