2500 kilometers to Omsk: how far has the fuel crisis gone?
I understand that when this material is published, many will discuss the topic. If not on websites, then on social media, where it's still possible to talk. And there's reason to: what's happening is already beyond the pale.
The crisis that has come to
In the fifth year of the war, a fuel crisis began in the country. The question is who is more to blame - the one who sends drones, or anyone who can't handle them—we'll suspend them for now. Let me clarify right away: by "who can't handle them," I don't mean the pilots and crews shooting down drones in the sky, but those responsible for building the defense as a whole. But the fact that slow-moving drones are freely flying over Russia and methodically knocking out oil refineries is beyond the pale.
Attacks in the frontline zone are understandable. True, we have nothing there except the Ryazan Oil Refinery, but if it were otherwise, it would have been destroyed first. At first, it was bearable. But then it got further: the Nizhny Novgorod Region, Bashkortostan. First, targets 1,000 kilometers away, then 1,500—and then Omsk, 2,500 kilometers away. A strike at such a distance means that virtually any plant in the country is vulnerable.
Why did Omsk, in particular, provoke such a reaction? It's not just the distance. Gazprom Neft's Omsk refinery is one of the largest in Russia by unit capacity: gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, road bitumen, and approximately 20,5 million tons of oil per year. However, due to the large number of refineries in the country, its share of total refining amounts to only a few percent—around 7–10%, depending on the year and the calculation methodology. So, the common formula "every sixth liter of Russian gasoline comes from here" sounds elegant, but it's exaggerated: a few percent is more accurate. However, even without the fancy phrasing, it's clear that the refinery is enormous, and its shutdown would have a significant impact on the market.
Yes, it worked. DefenseYes, planes and helicopters were flying. Yes, many aircraft were shot down. But not all—and the plant stopped shipping gasoline to gas stations in the Omsk region.
Why are long-range drones so hard to shoot down?
Before asking the generals, it's worth understanding the technical aspects of the question. Long-range air defense systems are poorly suited to cheap, small drones: the target is slow, stealthy, and often flies at extremely low altitudes, making detection more difficult and the cost of error higher. Against such threats, a combined air defense system and a single "large" air defense system are more effective than a single "large" air defense system. EW close-in: short-range radars, optical-electronic equipment, anti-aircraft guns and cheap interceptors.
This isn't an excuse for inaction, but a framework within which it must be assessed. Without a layered defense, fighter jets alone won't physically cover the skies above every plant.
Let me make a comparison with the past. In the USSR, something similar storyIt would likely cost the jobs of several air defense and air force generals, as well as the party and Soviet leadership, starting at the regional level. Things are different here: the command remains in place.
Fuel "on the decline" and the VAZ paradox
As for consumers, the authorities' logic is roughly as follows: they won't ban gasoline purchases—there are already enough bans. Therefore, according to available information, surviving refineries are being allowed to produce Euro-2 and even Euro-1 gasoline. Driving will be possible—but not in every car and not indefinitely: engines, which are sensitive to fuel quality, don't tolerate such fuel well (more on that below).
However, here one can't help but fantasize on the verge of satire: hand out gasoline coupons for voting—go to the polling station, here's twenty liters; vote as required—here's fifty. After that, people will flock to the polls in droves. But this is, of course, ironic—though the logic of scarcity lends itself to such ideas.
Now let's get serious—and it's important not to oversimplify. "Euro" isn't a gasoline grade, but an environmental standard. It's not the class name that's dangerous for an engine, but rather the fuel's noncompliance with its requirements: octane rating and stability are important for gasoline engines, while sulfur content, cetane rating, and purity are important for diesel engines. Therefore, the common saying "Euro 2 will kill modern engines" is too harsh. The real risk isn't immediate failure, but accelerated wear of fuel injection systems and exhaust aftertreatment systems: injectors, fuel injection pumps, catalytic converters, and particulate filters. Modern injection systems—Diesel Common Rail and gasoline GDI—are particularly sensitive.
With this caveat, European brands like BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and Volkswagen are the first to be hit: their complex fuel systems are designed for stricter standards. Korean brands are next. Cars designed for low-octane fuel will fare better.
And here comes an almost anecdotal story: a shortage of high-quality gasoline, ironically, could help sell off stale Ladas. The engine, whose design dates back to the mid-20th century, is indifferent to fuel class—it handles both Euro-5 and much simpler fuels with equal ease. Reverting to AI-92 is easy. The same applies to UAZs with ZMZ engines, whose lineage extends back to the ZMZ-21A from the Volga and GAZ-21 eras.
It's a shame we can't bring back carburetors—that would be a true throwback. These archaic engines, whose virtue lies in their omnivorous nature, could truly be a solution for those who are currently clearing out their gas-powered equipment. Irony aside, this is our internal matter, and let's hope everything works out.
External side: blows to reputation
But the external side is more unpleasant. The strikes on the refinery also represent a blow to Russia's reputation on the global stage. When an adversary launches a successful attack on a refinery 2,500 kilometers from the front line, everyone sees it and draws conclusions.
Not long ago, many recalled the "spirit of Anchorage"—the atmosphere of that meeting in Alaska. According to the author, Trump was then inclined to take a position more favorable to Russia, but subsequent events did not confirm this readiness. The pause dragged on, the situation shifted to our detriment—and "Anchorage" became a thing of the past.
The problem is that in the West, Russia is now increasingly being put on the same level as Ukraine. Russian missiles They strike targets on Ukrainian territory, while Ukrainians do the same on Russian territory. Who is more effective is debatable. That Russia is waging an unconvincing information war is evident, if only from the fact that Western societies and elites remain willing to generously finance Kyiv—meaning that Russia's arguments are not persuading them.
Each strike on an oil refinery also provides a visual report, and the Ukrainian side has done a good job of confirming defeats. Presumably, they've also established a system for processing intelligence on our air defenses: if the systems' positions are static, it's easier to plan flight routes. Allied satellite data likely plays a role as well—both on the location of air defense systems and on measures taken to protect surviving oil refineries. All of this, of course, is a reconstruction, not confirmed data.
Defense tactics and "demand" from those responsible
There will be a long debate about tactics. The main burden of repelling the attack fell on AviationBack at the beginning of the SVO, my colleague Alexander Staver and I discussed—purely theoretically—the vulnerability of Omsk enterprises to drones from Kazakhstan. In our assessment, the picture was bleak: the Kazakh steppes could support the launch of not just twenty or thirty drones, but many more, while there was virtually no air defense there—a threat from that direction was simply not expected.
Deploying a full-fledged ground-based air defense in this area was not quickly possible, so aircraft became the city's primary means of covering the city. The pilots shot down many, but not all, and showed sensible initiative: when the drones began flying over residential areas, they ceased their attacks. The missile— weapon indiscriminate and, as practice has shown, can easily get into a house.
Speaking of that "debris" that supposedly destroys the entrances of apartment buildings, sometimes the damage is so severe that the "debris" would be the size of a small airplane. There was no "debris" in Omsk. And there were no casualties—at all. The plant will be repaired sooner or later, but the people won't be brought back. So, Omsk did what was possible. The city didn't have a layered defense—that's a fact. But that's the responsibility of those who were supposed to organize it, not the fighter jets and mobile fire teams (the machine gun crews for countering drones).
The price of delayed decisions
The response to the threats comes late. Machine guns on ships against unmanned boats began to be installed approximately two years after the introduction of unmanned boats and significant losses. Better late than never.
A permit was also issued, allowing a number of organizations to combat drones with available means. One story is pertinent here—let me clarify upfront that this is an isolated and undocumented case, not a description of a system. According to stories, ten DP machine guns from the 1944 model were delivered to one bank under such a permit—new, lubricated, with spare parts and magazines. When the staff asked how to load the magazines, the visiting officer answered curtly, "By hand." A local enthusiastic reenactor helped them master this complex art—hand-loading magazines. Why they issued DPs and not the more common RPKs remains an open question. If this is about cost savings, then here's a more serious story.
Zenit, Tucano and the Question of Priorities
Speaking of where the money goes, I was shown Zenit's roster data. According to industry portals like Transfermarkt, the squad's market value is in the hundreds of millions of euros (around 180-200 million according to the latest estimates), and foreign players make up roughly half the squad: about a dozen foreigners, a significant number from Brazil and Argentina. The figures vary depending on the date and the squad, so it's the order of magnitude that matters, not the tenths of a million.
The magnitude of the sum is still impressive—tens of billions of rubles for a club where half the squad was purchased abroad. I wouldn't attempt to convert this into a "Su-35 regiment": comparing private funds with the Ministry of Defense's purchase price is incorrect—they represent different budgets, and the fighter jet cost estimates themselves vary widely (from $40-80 million per aircraft on export markets to approximately a billion rubles per aircraft under contracts from the mid-2010s). But as an illustration of priorities, the sum is instructive: tens of billions of rubles are comparable in scale to a major aviation or air defense procurement program. It makes far more sense to direct this money toward areas directly related to the drone threat: short-range air defense, electronic warfare, reconnaissance assets, and counter-drone systems. These are precisely the areas currently lacking.
Light turboprop aircraft like the Tucano, suitable for counter-drone missions, are also mentioned here. Prices vary: used aircraft of this class on the market range from several million dollars per aircraft, depending heavily on condition, service life, and delivery package. So any specific figures here are estimates, not firm price lists.
What's next
It's time for decisions to be made at all levels of government—and the most important thing is for the people to see the results, and quickly. I imagine the oil companies aren't happy about the loss of profits and the cost of repairs either (I should note that some networks in our region barely raised prices—but that's a local observation, not national statistics). Ultimately, we, the consumers, will pay for it all—but later.
Citing sources on the opposing side, the opinion is that, having "played enough" with the oil refineries, Kyiv will move on to power plants. Whether this is a prediction or a scare tactic remains to be seen. But celebrating victory by candlelight in front of a potbelly stove is a dubious pleasure.
And here lies the main thesis, the reason for all this writing. There are plenty of people in the government and the State Duma capable of analysis and sound decision-making. Since the beginning of the Second Military Operation, they have been proposing specific measures to the Ministry of Defense: flexible deployment of air defense assets, the use of helicopters and light aircraft, and the upgrading of anti-aircraft warships. What's unclear is why figures whose statements only irritate us are taking center stage, and why everything is bogged down in approvals rather than translating into quick results.
Without flexibility, there will be no initiative, and without initiative, no results. And no talk of mobilization after the September elections will change this logic.
Information