Author's column

Burning Refineries at the Cost of Intelligence: Is the Gamble Worth It?

An op-ed on Ukraine’s bet that its own long-range strike capability is worth more than American intelligence that Washington can switch off at any moment — and why, for Kyiv, hitting Russian refineries is not escalation but the only way to change the equation of a war in which its ally bargains with the aggressor.

The Significant Economic and Military Impacts of Ukraine's Strikes on Russia's Oil Refineries — Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute (BISI)1 / 4
Open full-size image
The Significant Economic and Military Impacts of Ukraine's Strikes on Russia's Oil Refineries — Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute (BISI)© Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute

Ukraine is consciously risking the loss of American intelligence to keep hitting Russian refineries. This isn’t stubbornness — it’s a strategic bet that its own long-range strike capability is worth more than intelligence data that could be cut off at any moment.

Sounds like a paradox? Maybe. But let’s be honest: American intelligence is good, but a burning refinery lasts a long time. While the plant burns, Russia’s export revenue drops, military fuel logistics become harder, and the Kremlin gets the message: “your own territory is no longer safe.”

Last year, according to Axios, the Biden administration warned Kyiv: continue refinery attacks — lose access to satellite imagery and intercepts. Trump, now back in the White House, says roughly the same thing but with a different accent: “Ukraine should think about peace, not escalation.” And yet — the strikes continue.

Why? Because for Kyiv this isn’t “escalation.” It’s the only way to change the equation of the war when your ally is bargaining with the aggressor. If Washington is willing to trade intelligence for “restraint” — then what good is intelligence that protects not you, but the interests of someone who sells you weapons with strings attached?

Of course, the risk is enormous. Without American intelligence, Ukrainian long-range strikes become blind. We lose the ability to see troop movements, deep targets in Russia, warnings of missile threats. But what’s the alternative — waiting until we’re allowed to hit where we’re told? Waiting for Washington and Moscow to carve up “spheres of influence” at our expense?

So betting on domestic long-range capability isn’t about “showing character.” It’s a forced move when your ally proves unreliable at the most critical moment. And so far the bet is working: refineries burn, Russian oil processing declines, and the Kremlin has to divert resources to air defense instead of offense.

But the question remains: how long can we keep this up? Will the loss of intelligence turn into a battlefield catastrophe? There’s no answer. Only a choice — either rely on someone who can turn off the tap, or take the risk and try to become self-sufficient.

Tonight Ukrainian drones went for Rostov again. Tomorrow there may be another threat from Washington. But a burning refinery is a fact no diplomatic note can erase.