Escalating Mutual Deep Strikes in the Russia-Ukraine War: An Analysis of Risks to Refinery Infrastructure

Executive Summary

On September 19–20, Ukraine launched its largest-ever drone and missile attack across Russia, including on a Moscow oil refinery. For the first time, it deployed its domestically developed Pelican ballistic missile, securing an indigenous procurement line that bypasses Western arms restrictions. The attack, occurring on the final day of the Duma elections, carried symbolic intent aimed at fracturing the Kremlin's domestic political narrative, and Russia immediately vowed retaliation. EAI assesses that the baseline scenario (55% probability), in which channels for negotiation and military pressure operate separately, remains the most likely. Combined with the pessimistic escalation scenario (30%), this places the probability of continued or expanded mutual infrastructure strikes at 85%. The agreement to halt attacks on energy facilities, mentioned by President Trump, has been reconfirmed as ineffective. Companies should adopt a dual-track strategy, allocating 60–70% of their resources to managing risks in Russia's refinery and logistics supply chains and 30–40% to preparing for market entry into Ukraine's reconstruction and defense sectors.

I. Situational Analysis of the Issue

Ukraine Authorizes Long-Range Attacks on Russia, Escalating the Conflict

1. Background and Developments

Ukraine's strikes on Russian oil refineries are an extension of a campaign that began this summer[5]. On August 21, the Perm refinery was hit, followed by the Novokuibyshevsk refinery in Samara Oblast on August 22[5]. On September 17, a drone attack on the Yaroslavl refinery (Slavneft-YANOS), located 250 kilometers northeast of Moscow, forced it to completely halt crude oil processing[15]. The plant is one of Russia's major refining facilities[15].

The strikes continued despite President Trump's mention of an agreement between the two sides to cease attacks on energy facilities[16][11]. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has assessed that while Russia is the world's third-largest refiner, with 32 major refineries and a capacity of 6.5 million barrels per day, its refining sector has been damaged by Ukraine's sustained campaign of deep drone strikes[2]. In a previous report, EAI analyzed these Ukrainian strikes as part of a strategy to expand deep-strike capabilities to offset its disadvantages in the ground war[3].

On September 19, President Zelenskyy announced that he had approved a new long-range operation after receiving a report from Defense Minister Khmara and Commander-in-Chief Drapatyi[1][4]. The move was presented as a response to Russian airstrikes[1].

2. Current Situation

On the night of September 19–20, Ukraine simultaneously launched hundreds of drones and missiles across Russia[10][17]. Moscow Mayor Sobyanin stated that 450 drones heading for the capital were shot down, describing the attack as the "most massive" to date[17]. The governor of Moscow Oblast announced that at least two people were killed and 20 were injured[17][11].

The key target of this attack was the Gazpromneft-Moscow oil refinery[6]. President Zelenskyy and the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine officially confirmed that the facility was engulfed in fire[6]. Numerous videos posted on social media showed smoke covering the Moscow sky[6][8]. DW noted that the attack occurred on the final day of the Russian State Duma elections[8]. The Slovenian media outlet Delo also reported that while the Duma election results were a foregone conclusion, Moscow suffered its most extensive attack since the beginning of the war on the final day of voting[9].

President Zelenskyy confirmed that in this attack, Ukraine used its domestically developed short-range ballistic missile, the 'Pelican' (Fp7), for the first time since the war began[10][12]. The 'Flamingo' cruise missile was also deployed[12]. This demonstrates that Ukraine has incorporated ballistic missile capabilities into its indigenous procurement line, following its development of cruise missiles.

The ruling United Russia party won the State Duma election with 57.3% of the vote[12]. Russia vowed retaliation for the drone offensive. The Italian newspaper La Repubblica reported that Moscow warned Kyiv it would "respond to the rain of drones" (Risponderemo alla pioggia di droni)[12].

3. Key Actors and Positions

President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian military leadershipare using long-range strikes as a strategic tool to offset their weaker negotiating position. The fact that the president personally approved the new operation after a report from Defense Minister Khmara and Commander-in-Chief Drapatyi[1][4] suggests that this escalation was not an impromptu reaction but a coordinated decision at the highest levels of the military. A previous EAI report noted that policy continuity in the drone-centric asymmetric strike strategy remained a key variable even after the dismissal of Defense Minister Fedorov[7]; the approval of this operation shows that this continuity is being maintained.

The Russian government and the Kremlinview the strike on a capital refinery on the final day of the Duma elections as a serious security failure. The image of Moscow's sky filled with smoke coinciding with the announcement of the United Russia party's victory has increased the burden of managing the domestic message regarding the regime's ability to ensure security. In response, the Kremlin has officially vowed retaliation[12], signaling a potential repeat of the "retaliation against grain terminals after the Novorossiysk strike" pattern previously analyzed by EAI[5].

Moscow city authorities (Mayor Sobyanin)officially characterized the attack as the largest since the war began, while adopting a defensive communication strategy that highlighted the number of drones shot down (450)[17]. This can be interpreted as a crisis management response at the municipal level aimed at emphasizing the effectiveness of its air defense network.

The United States (Trump administration)claimed to have brokered an agreement to halt attacks on energy facilities, but the strikes continued even after this announcement[16][11]. This shows that U.S. mediation channels are operating separately from military execution channels on the ground, revealing that Washington's political announcements lack the power to deter actual combat.

4. Key Issues

The first issue is Ukraine's operationalization of ballistic missiles. The confirmation of the first combat use of the Pelican missile[10] signifies that Ukraine's deep-strike capabilities are expanding from drones and cruise missiles to include ballistic missiles. This not only adds a new type of threat to Russia's air defense network but could also reignite debates in the West over technology and component support.

The second issue is the synchronization of military action with the political calendar. The attack's occurrence on the final day of the Duma elections[8][9] can be interpreted not as a coincidence but as a deliberate choice of timing for symbolic effect. This raises the need to monitor the correlation between future Russian domestic political events (such as regional elections and anniversaries) and the timing of Ukrainian strikes.

The third issue is the tangible impact of the strikes on the refinery sector. While the IEA assesses that Russia's refinery sector is being tangibly hit[2], the cumulative effect of shutdowns at individual facilities like those in Yaroslavl and Moscow on Russia's overall crude refining capacity and domestic fuel supply remains uncertain. Rising fuel prices and supply shortages within Russia have already been reported[11], and if this trend continues, its impact on Russian public opinion will be a key factor to watch.

The fourth issue is the effectiveness of U.S. mediation channels. As the agreement to halt attacks on energy facilities announced by the Trump administration is repeatedly violated on the ground[16], it is highly likely that the credibility of the binding nature of any U.S.-proposed agreements will become a prominent issue in future negotiations.

II. In-Depth Analysis of the Issue

Ukraine Authorizes Long-Range Attacks, Escalating the Conflict: An In-Depth Analysis

1. Analysis of Root Causes

The root cause of Ukraine's expansion of deep strikes on refinery facilities is its structural disadvantage in the ground war[3]. Amid a continuing war of attrition involving troops and equipment on the Donetsk front, Ukraine has opted for asymmetric drone and missile strikes as an alternative to offset the gap in conventional military power[3][7]. This is a method of directly pressuring Russia's economic rear rather than seeking a breakthrough on the front lines.

The reason for targeting refineries is clear. Russia is the world's third-largest refiner, with 32 major facilities and a refining capacity of 6.5 million barrels per day[2]. This sector is a key pillar of its war financing and the practical foundation for logistics transport and fuel supply. The IEA has assessed that Ukraine's long-term deep drone campaign is inflicting cumulative, tangible damage on Russia's refinery sector[2]. The case of the Yaroslavl refinery completely halting crude processing demonstrates that this strategy aims to actually disrupt production, not just conduct demonstrative attacks[15].

Russia's vow of retaliation follows the same logical structure. A previous EAI report pointed to the pattern of Russia conducting retaliatory strikes on grain terminals after the attack on Novorossiysk[5]. Putin's description of strikes on vulnerable sectors of the Ukrainian economy as a "Pandora's box" is also an extension of this logic of mutual infrastructure attacks[5]. Both sides are operating on the calculation that striking rear infrastructure is a low-cost, high-efficiency means of depleting the adversary's ability to sustain the war.

2. Structural Context

Political Context: The attack's occurrence on the final day of the Russian Duma elections was not a coincidence[8][9]. The Slovenian media outlet Delo noted that the election result—a victory for the ruling United Russia party with 57.3% of the vote—was a foregone conclusion[9]. Ukraine's decision to launch its largest attack at a time when the election's outcome was already determined implies a symbolic intent to fracture the Kremlin's domestic political narrative. DW assessed that the Moscow attack has implications beyond its immediate military effects[8].

Economic Context: Strikes on Russia's refinery sector are having a direct impact on the domestic fuel market. DW reported that Ukraine's repeated strikes on refineries have led to shortages of petroleum products and rising fuel prices within Russia[11]. This, coupled with the fact that the agreement to halt attacks on energy facilities mentioned by President Trump has proven ineffective[16][11], reveals that the partial agreement framework brokered by the U.S. is failing to control military logic on the ground.

Security Context: Ukraine's first use of its domestically developed 'Pelican' ballistic missile in this attack[10][12], following the 'Flamingo' cruise missile, shows a trend of diversifying its indigenous long-range strike capabilities. This is directly linked to establishing an indigenous procurement route that bypasses Western restrictions on arms support, such as limitations on range and targets. Although the Ukrainian military leadership recently experienced internal conflict between drone innovators and the traditional military establishment over the dismissal of Defense Minister Fedorov[7], the approval of this long-range operation suggests that the deep-strike policy is being maintained under the leadership of Defense Minister Khmara and Commander-in-Chief Drapatyi[1][4][7].

3. Comparison with Historical Precedents and Similar Cases

The current situation is structurally identical to the August strikes on the Samara and Perm refineries and Putin's subsequent vow of "Pandora's box" retaliation[5]. At that time, a pattern was also confirmed where Russia conducted retaliatory strikes on grain terminals following an attack on the Novorossiysk Black Sea Fleet base[5]. A similar pattern was observed in early September when airstrikes on Kyiv were halted for three days to coincide with a visit to Moscow by special envoys Wittkopf and Kushner, only to resume immediately after their departure[3]. The Kremlin's approach of operating negotiation and military pressure channels separately can be seen as having been replicated during the recent Duma election period.

In other words, since this summer, the Russia-Ukraine front has been repeating a cycle of "strike-vow of retaliation-temporary halt-resumption." The fact that actual strikes have continued despite two announcements of an agreement brokered by the Trump administration to refrain from attacking energy facilities (in early August and at the time of Trump's statement in September)[16][11] repeatedly confirms that U.S. mediation power has structural limitations in curbing military incentives on the ground.

4. Key Variables Shaping the Issue's Development

The first variable is the method and scale of Russia's retaliation. Russia has vowed to "respond to the rain of drones"[12]. Based on past patterns, the retaliation is likely to target highly symbolic elements of Ukraine's economic infrastructure, such as ports, grain terminals, and the power grid[5].

The second variable is whether U.S. mediation channels will continue. With President Trump's mention of an agreement to halt attacks on energy facilities having proven ineffective[16], the pace of escalation will depend on whether the U.S. attempts further mediation or pivots to expanding military support. LRT reported that President Zelenskyy mentioned an agreement to meet with Trump, stating that it could change the situation[18].

The third variable is the production speed of Ukraine's indigenous long-range capabilities. The fact that the U.S. Army signed a $10.6 million contract for Ukrainian-made Raybird drones[1] shows that tangible Western investment in Ukraine's path toward defense self-reliance is continuing. The speed at which the Pelican ballistic missile and Flamingo cruise missile are deployed will determine the future frequency and precision of strikes on Russian refinery and energy infrastructure.

The fourth variable is the physical resilience of Russia's refinery sector. With many of the 32 refineries having already suffered repeated attacks[2][15], the speed at which Russia can repair facilities and establish alternative supply chains will determine the severity of domestic fuel market instability and financial pressure.