There are maps showing pipeline routes to the Pacific Coast and into China itself. Currently? There seem to be two direct pipelines into China and two more proposed or under constriction plus a pipeline to Vladivostok which of course is only a hop skip and a jump away from China by tanker.
2022-2026 Russo-Ukrainian War
- Thread starter Mithridates
- Start date
OK, so I googled, Russia's capacity to export oil via pipeline to China, and Vladivostok for tanker loading, is 80 million metric tons per year via the ESPO pipeline. So Russia is currently limited to exporting 15% of its oil via pipeline directly to China and Vladivostok.
There's also a 20 MMTpa pipeline in Central Asia, but I'm sure it's being utilized mainly by Central Asian producers.
Apparently Russian oil accounts for 50% of volume the Atasu-Alashankou is capable of delivering. So 90 MMtpa can be delivered via pipeline to China and Vladivostok, out of a total 515-550 MMtpa per year.
I've wondered for a while if the Ukrainian's might not have been better off focusing that (very clever) truck mounted drone infiltration operation on key parts of Russia's eastern oil infrastructure rather than planes. Then again the drones used in that Op didn't carry that much 'boom' per unit so it probably wouldn't have worked very will given the fairly robust nature of the plant and equipment involved.
They attacked the BAM Railway's Severomuysky Tunnel in November 2023 by detonating explosives in a 10-mile tunnel while there was a 50-car train hauling mostly diesel and a few aviation fuel tankers passing through. Don't know enough details as to whether the explosives were on the train or planted in the tunnel. A few days later they detonated explosives on the Devil's Bridge on the BAM which is immediately before/after that tunnel (depending on what way you're traveling).
The attacks disrupted Russian railway traffic on the line for at least several days, but they didn't succeed in severing the route by dropping the bridge or collapsing the tunnel. And of course, there's the Trans-Siberian Railway that runs to south of the BAM, and I believe the BAM itself has one or two bypasses in the area of the aforementioned tunnel/bridge.
The pipeline from European Russia and Western Siberia that feeds into the EPSO Pipeline to China/Vladivostok runs parallel to the Trans-Siberian Railway from Omsk to Tayshet, and the EPSO Pipeline also looks to run parallel to the Trans-Siberian Railway from Tynda (just north of the northermost part of Manchuria) to Vladivostok. Between Tayshet and Tynda it looks as though it diverges.
The attacks disrupted Russian railway traffic on the line for at least several days, but they didn't succeed in severing the route by dropping the bridge or collapsing the tunnel. And of course, there's the Trans-Siberian Railway that runs to south of the BAM, and I believe the BAM itself has one or two bypasses in the area of the aforementioned tunnel/bridge.
The pipeline from European Russia and Western Siberia that feeds into the EPSO Pipeline to China/Vladivostok runs parallel to the Trans-Siberian Railway from Omsk to Tayshet, and the EPSO Pipeline also looks to run parallel to the Trans-Siberian Railway from Tynda (just north of the northermost part of Manchuria) to Vladivostok. Between Tayshet and Tynda it looks as though it diverges.
I've personally wondered why they don't instead focus on the Russian forces and equipment operating on the frontlines in Ukraine.
You really wonder why?
Because taking out things like A-50s while they're on the ground degrades Russian command and control of their aircraft, enhancing the risk of the loss of those aircraft, making them less effective and less often utilized against Ukrainian civilian populations and military forces, and degrades the Russian ability to detect incoming Ukrainian aerial strikes and detect Ukrainian aircraft flying ground support missions.
Because taking out things like Tu-22s on the ground means fewer bombs and Kh-22 missiles hitting Ukrainian cities, infrastructure, and ground forces, and forces the Russians to stage their bomber fleet progressively further away (Arctic Circle, Siberia), giving Ukraine more warning time to prepare for and potentially intercept incoming airstrikes.
Because taking out a significant portion of the Black Sea Fleet defeated the Russian blockade, allowing Ukraine to re-open a vital import/export corridor to the rest of the world. This also forces the Russian Navy to base further away, neutralizes it as a threat, and removes the missile tubes on surface ships and submarines from the equation in conducting missile strikes against Ukraine.
A nation without a navy won the Battle of the Black Sea. Imagine that.
Because hitting Russian oil and gas infrastructure deprives the Russian government of easy revenue, forcing it to raise taxes on its citizens, forces its citizens to endure rising prices and shortages, forces the Russian government into arrears forgoing payments to its domestic arms manufacturers and military suppliers, forces it to liquidate its gold reserves, and forces the Russian federal and regional governments to slash bonuses for men signing military contracts, thus making military service a less lucrative endeavor.
Because hitting ammunition storage sites behind the front line means Russia has fewer shells to fire at Ukrainian ground forces, and Russia is forced to stage these sites further away, making their logistical lines longer and more complicated, forcing them to use more men and more trucks to maintain levels of supply to the front line.
Because hitting radar systems in Russia makes it easier for Ukraine to do all of these things.
I could go on for days.
I feel bad I had to break this down for you. This is Captain Obvious stuff.
They've been doing these operations for better than a year now and it all improves the frontline situation for Ukrainian troops operating in Ukraine how? Imagine if the Germans getting pushed back east in 1944 starting bombing random energy infrastructure in Missouri. That's not going to affect the war to their benefit at all and relative to the main effort would have been a waste of ordinance, time, and planning. It's like the New York Times story I linked to months ago and what the American military told them: the Ukrainians are focused on shiny prize hits as opposed to trying to win.
Been answered before by Ironduke. In the case in question the targets were high value aircraft critical to Russia's air launched missile attacks on Ukraine. Russia now only has a couple (max maybe 4) AWACS left and not many more long range bombers. As of now and for a variety of reasons both types effectively irreplaceable. Following this strike Russia effectively doesn't have the capacity to maintain a 24/7 airborne warning and combat direction inside Ukrainian airspace nor can it launch nearly as as many long range cruise missiles as it could before the attack. Both of these issues are important for the survival and ongoing effectiveness of the Ukrainian Air Force as outnumbered as it is.
And the key point? Is that the drones used in the truck attacks were small and carried equally small payloads. So the aircraft in question made ideal targets since they are extremely vulnerable to even a small explosive charge. (Blowing a garbage can lid sized hole through the main wing spars or internal compartments of a large jet tends to make their pilots more than a little reluctant to try flying them.) Using the same number of drones on or near the front lines? Wouldn't have achieved anywhere near as much damage because there are no delicate, high value targets sitting around in the open there. That being the case. What would've killing or injuring a few score more Russian soldiers have achieved? Answer, nothing! I mean it's not like a few civilian trucks could just drive freely around Russian rear areas and park all nice and cozy up next to the command posts of their choosing is it?
My reference to oil infrastructure was because I would have regarded them as just as important targets as the aircraft that were destroyed instead. But, as I later noted the issue was probably payload. Knocking out oil storage tanks at some important oil refining or storage site doesn't really cut it. The fires might look spectacular but once they're dealt with the tanks are relatively quick & easy to replace. If you want to really shut a refinery down? You have to take out the distillation, cracking and treatment equipment. The problem being they're physically tougher/much harder targets to hit and damage with small drones.
That said if you succeed? The Russian's would at best have to wait months to repair the facility in question and that's if they could repair at all! Basically? The Ukrainians arguably made the right call. They could do this only once and they only had a limited choice of high value targets they could reach.
And the key point? Is that the drones used in the truck attacks were small and carried equally small payloads. So the aircraft in question made ideal targets since they are extremely vulnerable to even a small explosive charge. (Blowing a garbage can lid sized hole through the main wing spars or internal compartments of a large jet tends to make their pilots more than a little reluctant to try flying them.) Using the same number of drones on or near the front lines? Wouldn't have achieved anywhere near as much damage because there are no delicate, high value targets sitting around in the open there. That being the case. What would've killing or injuring a few score more Russian soldiers have achieved? Answer, nothing! I mean it's not like a few civilian trucks could just drive freely around Russian rear areas and park all nice and cozy up next to the command posts of their choosing is it?
My reference to oil infrastructure was because I would have regarded them as just as important targets as the aircraft that were destroyed instead. But, as I later noted the issue was probably payload. Knocking out oil storage tanks at some important oil refining or storage site doesn't really cut it. The fires might look spectacular but once they're dealt with the tanks are relatively quick & easy to replace. If you want to really shut a refinery down? You have to take out the distillation, cracking and treatment equipment. The problem being they're physically tougher/much harder targets to hit and damage with small drones.
That said if you succeed? The Russian's would at best have to wait months to repair the facility in question and that's if they could repair at all! Basically? The Ukrainians arguably made the right call. They could do this only once and they only had a limited choice of high value targets they could reach.
Last edited:
So the Germans hitting energy infrastructure in Missouri in 1944 would have improved their frontlines in France how?
I'm sorry but so many people are out to lunch on this war and have been for awhile. What's the point of this war for Ukraine? That's the fundamental starting point question. The point I think most would agree is to defend the Ukrainian homeland and to drive out the Russians. Everything beyond that is completely auxiliary and probably irrelevant to the overriding point. If you can demonstrate "we can hit their missile launch capabilities on the Russian mainland which is hitting Ukrainian civilian and military infrastructure" or "we can hit their drone manufacturing facility", great, that's a useful purpose for Ukrainian troops on the frontline as well as your civilian population. Hitting an oil pipeline in Siberia does not do jacksh*t for Ukraine.
(If you're going to argue economic effects that would force Russia to withdraw from the war, that's probably a 30-page Ph.D. thesis minimum with lots of graphs and charts and footnotes demonstrating the connections between economics, geopolitics, energy, and the cause and effect that would require that to occur as well as predicting when it would occur. People in this thread making that case can start writing. You have time.)
Last edited:
The 'point' is national survival and failing a peace deal outlasting Russia on the battlefield. Beyond that? I'm afraid your analogy about Germany's strategic position in France and in 1944 is somewhat defective. Germany would have to have had some mechanism for hitting both US oil refinery and storage and Britain's in the Middle East.
Furthermore any such strikes, even if successful wouldn't have changed the outcome for Germany just delayed the inevitable because again both the US and Britain had the industrial capacity to rebuild their oil infrastructure if or when it got damaged. Russia today? Prior to the war starting was reliant on foreign nations (primarily Western ones) for key technologies used in their oil and gas networks. If those key components are damaged they cannot repair them without foreign assistance.
Last edited:
Don't need a Ph.D. thesis to understand why Ukraine has targeted what it has behind the front lines.
Just an ounce of common sense and a modicum of intelligence.
Around here, this stuff is layman's knowledge. Sorry you're confused and can't wrap your head around it. I can't help you.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2003
- Messages
- 25,414
I mean, he's comparing Ukraine/Russia in 2025 to Germany/United States in 1944
That kinda says all we need to know about his analytical "skills".
Shadow fleet tanker Dashan hit in the Black Sea by Ukrainian sea drones. The tanker was en route from the port of Sikka in Gujarat, India to Novorossiysk (unladen).
Short video from Suchomimus and a longer video from What's Going on With Shipping?
Bonus content in the latter video, pictures of the abandoned derelict Kairos, previously hit by sea drones, drifted into and now anchored in Bulgarian territorial waters.
Short video from Suchomimus and a longer video from What's Going on With Shipping?
Bonus content in the latter video, pictures of the abandoned derelict Kairos, previously hit by sea drones, drifted into and now anchored in Bulgarian territorial waters.
Here's an odd story.
responsiblestatecraft.org
Think tanker altered Ukraine war map before big Polymarket payout
The Institute for the Study of War disavowed the edit, removed the employee, but is staying quiet, raising questions about the credibility of ISW and prediction gambling
responsiblestatecraft.org
After months of Russian efforts to take the city, and just hours after Putin announces the complete occupation of Kupiansk and invites journalists to come tour the city, with "15 Ukrainian battalions surrounded", the Ukrainians re-take city in one fell swoop with hundreds of Russian troops cut off and surrounded in the city center. And instead of journalists coming to visit Russian "liberated" Kupiansk, Zelensky shows up instead.
Some serious egg on Russian faces right now.
Some serious egg on Russian faces right now.
They'll just ignore the bad news and move on to their next propaganda point. I doubt it will happen but it would be 'nice' if Trump was informed of this development. There's just a small chance it might alter his thinking a tad re Ukraine's chances.
Apparently the Ukrainians still have cards to play, and in the case of Kupiansk in particular, an Uno reverse card no less.
tass.com
Russian troops liberate Kupyansk in Kharkov Region
Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov reported that units of the Battlegroup West destroyed Ukrainian formations encircled on the left bank of the Oskol River
tass.com
Just for clarity this report means what exactly? Russia still claiming to have captured the city? Or is there another point I'm missing?Apparently the Ukrainians still have cards to play, and in the case of Kupiansk in particular, an Uno reverse card no less.
View attachment 1609870Russian troops liberate Kupyansk in Kharkov Region
Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov reported that units of the Battlegroup West destroyed Ukrainian formations encircled on the left bank of the Oskol River