Proponents of the strikes argue that targeting Russian oil refineries is a legitimate and necessary military strategy. By degrading the infrastructure that produces fuel for tanks and fighter jets, Ukraine is directly undermining the Russian military's ability to sustain its offensive operations. This approach is viewed as a rational response to a conflict where one side possesses a significant advantage in raw resources and industrial output.
From a tactical standpoint, these strikes force the Russian military to spread its air defense systems thinner. By compelling Moscow to protect refineries, depots, and factories located deep within its borders, Ukraine effectively pulls resources away from the front lines. This creates openings for Ukrainian forces to exploit in other areas, turning Russia's size into a strategic liability rather than an asset.
Furthermore, supporters emphasize that these actions are a direct consequence of the war initiated by Russia. They contend that as long as the Russian economy continues to fund and fuel the invasion, its industrial assets remain valid military targets. The goal is to impose a tangible cost on the Russian state, making the continuation of the war more difficult and expensive for the Kremlin to maintain over the long term.
Ultimately, this strategy is seen as a way to level the playing field. Without the ability to strike back at the source of Russian military power, Ukraine would be forced to fight a purely defensive war on its own soil. By taking the fight to the enemy's industrial heartland, Kyiv is asserting its right to defend itself by any effective means available.