10AUG

CEPA scale check: 0.46% of Russian oil

3 min read

23:27UTC

David Axe at CEPA, citing RUSI research, assessed Ukraine's 130 oil strikes in 2025 produced $863 million of damage against roughly $189 billion in annual Russian oil revenue.

← Back to Iran replaces the man who set its terms Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Ukraine's oil strike campaign delivers footage; the revenue figures sit on the wrong side of the scale.

David Axe at CEPA (Center for European Policy Analysis), citing RUSI research published this month, assessed that Ukraine's 130 refinery and port strikes in 2025 delivered only a 6% export reduction against 2024 ¹. Cumulative damage came to $863 million against roughly $189 billion in annual Russian oil revenue, or 0.46% of the base.

That is roughly the cost of three weeks of Patriot operations in the Middle East, set against a rounding error in Moscow's books. At that tempo, Ukraine would need over two centuries of strike operations to match a single year of Russian oil revenue. Ukrainian targeteers pick lightly-defended terminals for visible damage, leaving hardened core infrastructure intact. Footage does most of the work the revenue figures do not.

Two separate considerations compound the scale problem. Fire Point, the Ukrainian consortium manufacturing the Flamingo cruise missile , is reportedly under investigation by NABU (Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau). Only nine Flamingos have been fired in six months, against the hundreds that any serious strike campaign against hardened infrastructure would require. And the Iran war separated price from volume in a way the infrastructure campaign cannot control: Urals rode the Hormuz premium while Baltic throughput was recovering. When Kyiv asks for Patriots for ballistic defence while launching its own drones at pipelines Chevron part-owns, the two trade-offs sit on the same ledger.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Ukraine has been hitting Russian oil refineries and export terminals in a campaign aimed at cutting the revenue that funds Russia's military. A new report from the Center for European Policy Analysis and RUSI found that 130 such strikes across 2025 reduced Russia's oil exports by only 6% and caused $863 million in total damage. Russia earns roughly $189 billion per year from oil. So the entire year of strikes damaged the equivalent of 0.46% of annual revenue. To put that in context, Russia earns back that amount in about 42 hours. The Iran war's oil price spike likely generated more revenue for Russia in a single week than Ukraine's entire 2025 strike campaign cost Russia in a year.

What could happen next?

Meaning
The CEPA finding reframes the Baltic and Black Sea oil campaigns as primarily having operational-denial value, not economic attrition value; Ukraine's justification for the campaign must shift accordingly.
Immediate · 0.78
Risk
If the Fire Point/NABU investigation reveals systematic corruption in Ukraine's precision strike procurement, it will complicate Western partner willingness to fund further anti-infrastructure weapons deliveries.
Short term · 0.62
Opportunity
The 6% export-volume reduction, while small in revenue terms, represents real capacity constraints on specific refinery outputs (aviation fuel, diesel) that have strategic value beyond headline revenue figures.
Medium term · 0.55

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: Allied strategic bombing of German oil infrastructure in 1944-45 required approximately 18 months of sustained precision strikes, consuming over 6,000 sorties, before achieving a 70% reduction in aviation fuel production.

Ukraine has conducted 130 strikes with cruise missiles and drones, not heavy bomber fleets with precision-guided munitions. The CEPA finding is consistent with the historical lesson that infrastructure attrition requires an order of magnitude more capacity than Ukraine currently deploys.

Counter-parallel: NATO's 1999 Kosovo campaign struck Serbian oil refineries over 78 days and produced an economic shock that contributed to Milosevic's negotiated withdrawal, but Serbian oil revenues were tiny compared to Russia's $189 billion annual figure. Scale matters: Kosovo-level infrastructure strikes are insufficient at Russian scale.

The Flamingo cruise missile programme is a notable data point: only 9 firings in six months, with the manufacturer Fire Point under NABU investigation. If Ukraine's most sophisticated anti-infrastructure missile is both scarce and under a corruption probe, the 0.46% figure is not a floor that can be pushed higher through scaling.

The structural implication: Ukraine needs either a qualitatively different class of weapon (longer range, higher accuracy, greater payload) or a fundamentally different targeting theory to shift the revenue damage ratio. Current drone and cruise missile capabilities at current sortie rates cannot close the gap between $863 million and the $18-19 billion that would represent a genuinely debilitating revenue reduction at 10% of annual revenue.

Consensus view: RAND's Dara Massicot assesses that the 0.46% damage-to-revenue ratio reveals a fundamental asymmetry in Ukraine's strike campaign: physical infrastructure destruction is expensive, precise, and reversible, while Russia's revenue is driven by global oil price movements that Ukraine cannot control. The Iran war's price effect on Urals crude offset every infrastructure strike Ukraine conducted in 2025 within a matter of days.

Counter-view: Michael Nacht at the University of California Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy argues the 0.46% figure understates the campaign's indirect effects: insurance premiums on Black Sea and Baltic crude shipments rose sharply, Russian re-routing costs increased, and some refinery capacity that was struck has not been fully restored, creating sustained throughput constraints not captured in annual revenue aggregates.

Key tension: Whether Ukraine's oil campaign is primarily an economic strategy, where the 0.46% finding is damning, or a denial-of-capacity strategy, where long-term refinery and terminal degradation is the intended metric.

First Reported In

Update #12 · Three narrowings of US support for Kyiv

Center for European Policy Analysis· 11 Apr 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

This Event

CEPA scale check: 0.46% of Russian oil

Load-bearing counter-evidence against the narrative that Ukraine's strike campaign is constraining Russian oil revenue.

Led to

Syzran Hit, Quarter of Refining Halted

The 20-21 May Syzran and Reuters refinery synthesis represents a campaign evolution from the 2025 revenue-targeting strikes CEPA/RUSI assessed

Occurred 20 May 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

Yemen's internationally recognised government and affected communities

SABA reported at least 17 soldiers killed at Saudi-backed camps in eastern Yemen as tanker use of Bab el-Mandeb fell. The fighting adds civilian and supply risks to a route ships use when Hormuz is unsafe.

Shipping and insurance market

Lloyd's List Intelligence counted 84 Hormuz transits in the week to 7 August, against more than 700 in normal conditions. Vessel operators and underwriters need verified passage rules and a lower attack risk before regular sailings return.

United States Treasury

The US Treasury designated five Iranian individuals and ten entities, including crypto exchanges and wallet addresses, on 7 August. Washington is applying financial pressure while Iran asks for sanctions relief before reopening Hormuz.

United Arab Emirates

The UAE said an Iranian missile targeted an ADNOC-owned vessel on 8 August. Abu Dhabi's claim puts its state energy fleet inside the dispute, though the incident's details remain unresolved.

Oman

Oman and Iran agreed discussions on monitoring, environmental protection, maritime services and crime, while excluding transit fees. Muscat's role is operational mediation, but it cannot settle demands directed at Washington.

Iran's Supreme National Security Council

Iran's Security Council published six conditions for reopening Hormuz, including sanctions relief and frozen assets. Tehran treats maritime access as part of a wider settlement rather than a shipping-only arrangement.