Oil more expensive than safety? Why Kyiv is not obliged to save the market by sparing Russian refineries

Against the backdrop of a surge in global oil prices, Ukraine received signals from foreign partners requesting a reduction in the intensity of strikes on Russian oil infrastructure. This was stated by Kyrylo Budanov in an interview with Bloomberg, noting that Kyiv indeed hears such messages but prefers to respond diplomatically and without unnecessary details.

The head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Kyrylo Budanov, made this statement in an interview with Bloomberg, published on April 4, 2026. As the agency indicated, the conversation took place on April 4, 2026, at an undisclosed location in Ukraine. It was in this interview that Budanov confirmed that Kyiv receives signals from foreign allies requesting to cease regular strikes on Russian refineries amid rising global oil prices.

Behind the dry wording lies a much harsher conflict of interests. For some external players, it is more important to prevent a new round of oil price hikes, market upheavals, and consumer pressure. For Ukraine, the issue looks different: it is precisely Russia’s oil revenues that continue to fuel the war, finance strikes on Ukrainian cities, and give Moscow the ability to keep its economy on a war footing for longer.

That is why the topic has long gone beyond pure energy. Today, it is already a debate about what to prioritize — price stability in the global market or the right of a country under constant attack to strike at the source of the aggressor’s military earnings.

For Israel, this story also has direct significance. Jerusalem understands all too well what it means to live under the threat of missile and drone strikes and knows how quickly security issues collide with the cynical calculations of international players, for whom the price of a barrel sometimes sounds louder than the price of human life. Therefore, material of this kind is important for readers of НАновости — Новости Израиля | Nikk.Agency, as it shows that energy blackmail, war, and the interests of authoritarian regimes are increasingly intertwined — from Ukraine to the Middle East.

Why strikes on Russian refineries have become a sensitive topic for allies

The market is nervous, and Kyiv receives signals

Budanov’s words came against the backdrop of noticeable upheavals in Russian oil logistics. The day before, Reuters reported that Russia’s Baltic export hubs in Ust-Luga and Primorsk, after a series of Ukrainian attacks, remain unable to process shipments normally, which affects not only individual facilities but the entire chain of raw material and oil product exports.

When such nodes fail, the problem ceases to be local.

Russian refineries are forced to seek bypass routes, deliveries become more complicated, and export restrictions can also impact production. For the global market, this is bad news. For Moscow — even worse.

This is where the nervousness of some foreign capitals appears. They see not only Ukrainian military effectiveness but also the risk of rising oil prices, along with it — voter dissatisfaction, inflationary pressure, and new questions to their own governments.

But Ukraine has a different arithmetic

For Kyiv, the logic is straightforward: if Russia earns from oil, it means it receives additional resources to continue the war.

Therefore, strikes on oil infrastructure are not a symbolic action but an attempt to limit the financial base of aggression.

That is why requests to be more cautious for the sake of global prices are increasingly coldly received in Ukraine. When a country lives daily under the threat of missiles, drones, and strikes on critical infrastructure, discussions about markets disliking upheavals sound like a conversation from another reality.

Especially against the backdrop of the fact that Russia itself has long been waging war not only with its army but also with energy, exports, fear, and blackmail.

What the latest attacks on the Russian oil system showed

From Primorsk to Kstovo

Immediately after publications about diplomatic signals, new reports of strikes appeared. In the morning, the authorities of the Nizhny Novgorod region stated that the Kstovo refinery facilities were damaged. Simultaneously, there were reports of an attack on a section of the pipeline in the Primorsk area.

So, it’s not about a pause.

Ukraine continues to systematically work on Russia’s oil infrastructure, despite the dissatisfaction of some partners. And this is precisely the case where consistency itself becomes a political signal: Kyiv does not intend to become a hostage to others’ price fears while Moscow profits from the war.

Such an approach may seem harsh, but in reality, it fits into basic military logic. If the enemy finances aggression through oil and oil product exports, then strikes on these facilities are not an ‘exotic escalation’ but a quite rational way to weaken its capabilities.

Why the comparison with Iran is not accidental here

The argument that more restraint should be shown for the sake of stable prices sounds especially cynical in the Ukrainian perspective because it reminds of a familiar trap in Middle Eastern politics. By this logic, one could turn a blind eye to the actions of the ayatollah regime, just so that global markets do not get too nervous and fuel prices do not irritate voters.

But such a scheme has already proven its danger.

When an aggressive regime is allowed to use energy, oil, straits, exports, and fear as a tool of pressure, it does not become more moderate. It only becomes convinced that blackmail works. That is why both Ukraine and Israel understand the cost of such compromises all too well.

Kyiv proceeds from the fact that it is impossible to endlessly adjust defense to the comfort of the global market, especially if this market effectively continues to feed the enemy’s war machine and simultaneously strengthen forces hostile to Israel.

Why this story is important not only for Ukraine

Moscow’s oil revenues are also a weapon

The longer Russia’s high oil export revenues persist, the more room the Kremlin has to continue the war. This money turns into missiles, drones, production, logistics, payments to contractors, and the ability to prolong the conflict, counting on Western fatigue.

Therefore, a strike on refineries is not a strike on an abstract economy but on the mechanism that pays for the destruction of Ukrainian cities.

In this regard, the Ukrainian position looks not emotional but strategic. Kyiv cannot agree to a model where it is required to fight more carefully just because the world finds it more convenient to calculate the cost of gasoline.

What Israel should see in this

For the Israeli audience, there is another layer here. Today, Russia, Iran, and their associated power and energy interests increasingly operate in the same political plane. Moscow benefits from increased tension, Tehran uses chaos and fear, and global markets become a channel through which authoritarian regimes try to dictate their terms to the outside world.

That is why the issue of strikes on Russian refineries is not only a Ukrainian topic.

It is a story about how democracies once again face an unpleasant choice: to truly limit the aggressor or to retreat each time before the argument that decisive actions are too costly for the market. And if the latter is chosen, the price almost always turns out to be higher later — both in Europe and the Middle East.

In this sense, Kyiv’s position seems understandable. Ukraine is not obliged to save global comfort at the cost of preserving Russian oil revenues. Especially when these revenues help Moscow continue the war, and energy blackmail from Iran’s allies and partners has long been part of the overall threat to the entire region — from Ukrainian cities to Israel.