Proponents of the strike argue that targeting Russian oil refineries is a legitimate and necessary military tactic. By hitting the infrastructure that fuels the Russian military, Ukraine is effectively degrading the enemy's ability to conduct offensive operations. This strategy forces the Russian leadership to divert valuable air defense assets away from the front lines to protect industrial sites deep within their own territory.
From a strategic standpoint, the economic pressure created by these strikes is significant. Russia relies heavily on the export of refined petroleum products to fund its state budget and military spending. When a major facility like the one in Volgograd is forced to halt production, it creates a ripple effect that impacts the entire Russian economy. Supporters maintain that as long as Russia continues its aggression, Ukraine has every right to strike the economic engines that sustain that aggression.
Furthermore, these operations serve as a powerful signal to the Russian public and the international community that the war is not a distant, abstract event. By bringing the reality of the conflict to industrial hubs, Ukraine challenges the narrative that the war can be fought without consequences for the Russian interior. This approach is viewed by many military analysts as a rational response to an asymmetric conflict where Ukraine must use every available tool to level the playing field.
Ultimately, the goal is to shorten the conflict by making it unsustainable for the Kremlin. By systematically targeting the energy sector, Ukraine aims to force a change in the cost-benefit analysis of the war. Supporters believe that these strikes are not just about immediate tactical damage, but about applying long-term pressure that could eventually limit Russia's capacity to continue its campaign.