Congratulations, you read one article. Now, "not a single Russian refining plant west of the Urals is operational" when it says "40% idle"... Maybe you rather live in your own fantasy?
Sorry to disappoint, but… the article is basically rubbish. Just a couple of weeks ago or so, there were news that the Washington Post basically fired their Russia, Ukraine, as well other departments. I believe this is the first article that I read in its entirety since then that definitely shows the results and decline. It basically gives a vibe of something written by mediocre students that tried to do their homework and plugged in a bunch of quotes with numbers and otherwise without actually understanding of the subject matter: they basically ran an internet search and copy pasted a whole bunch of stuff from the top search results and without verification to boot. A quote:
Citing data from Seala, a Russian energy markets analysis agency, the Russian business daily RBC reported that nearly 40 percent of the country’s refining capacity remains idle, mainly due to repairs after attacks.
“Attacks by Ukrainian drones are the main cause and account for up to 70 percent of the shutdowns,” Seala’s Vladimir Nikitin said, noting that scheduled maintenance on some facilities has been pushed back in a scramble to keep refineries running.
Russia’s fuel market is facing a shortfall equal to about 20 percent of monthly gasoline demand — roughly 400,000 tons out of the 2 million consumed — the Kommersant business daily reported, and consumers are starting to feel it. Roughly 1 in 50 gas stations have stopped selling gasoline as nationwide production has dropped by about 10 percent.
Since July, Russia has increased its gasoline purchases from neighboring ally Belarus by 36 percent compared with last year. In September, gasoline imports jumped by 168 percent compared with the previous months, but volumes are still not sufficient to meet demand.
Those are consecutive paragraphs and that is a lot of numbers and percentages, comparison to undefined “previous months” and so on. This is just garbage for the lemmings who either lack interest or mental capacity (often both) to process the information presented in front of them, but get excited because “zomg, big numbers, big trouble”, etc. The article further talks about civil unrest and whatever else. They also state the following and I want to insert an actual screenshot to illustrate the formatting practice as well:
Who the hell inserts hyperlinks like that and this the norm through out the article. Anyway, here is the reality as far as the ban is concerned:
The Russian government said on Saturday it was lifting the ban on gasoline exports for oil producers to avoid overstocking while extending the ban on exports for non-producers until the end of July 2026.
So not really a ban on the gasoline exports and not till the end of the year either, alas…
Diesel exports:
Russian diesel exports rebounded to around 900,000 b/d in December (after falling to a five-year low of 590,000 b/d in September), as refinery runs recovered from 5.0 to 5.5 million b/d.
Russian diesel exports rebounded to around 900,000 b/d in December (after falling to a five-year low of 590,000 b/d in September), as refinery runs recovered from 5.0 to 5.5 million b/d.
oilprice.com
From the same article for a larger perspective:
A Reuters article (from last week) talking about the Russian diesel exports (as well as further implied EU dependence on the US and cheaper RU diesel for others):
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
For whatever reason it doesn’t work in this case, lol. A whole bunch of people keep pointing out and disproving the dude’s claims, but he just keeps posting nonsense. At least the engagement is up with these low-credibility and questionable source quality posts, am I right? Laughing.
I also don’t even know what I am supposed to disprove here either. That 17 does not equal 38 (or whatever the number was)? Go figure.
Let’s see about regime change, but it at least looks like it’ll need new leadership
Indeed. We will see what happens. Overall, I, personally, fail to see any significant vulnerabilities and negative impacts that Russia may be exposed to here. First and foremost, this turn of events was not only predictable, but fully anticipated (speaking for myself) since the first attack on Iran last year and I doubt Russia didn’t account for the contingencies and serious vulnerability of Iran (maybe even encouraged some of it behind the scenes?).
In the short (maybe even medium, pending developments) term, it provides them with leverage in regard to the barrel discounts and higher oil prices in general. Supplies of interceptors to Ukraine will certainly be affected; other weapons likely as well. Ukraine attention sharing or losing it altogether (probably why this effort to insert it back via “Shahed expertise”). And so on. I fail to see how this does not benefit Russia, even if supplies of some imports from Iran are disrupted or disappear.
en-gb.topographic-map.com
www.theguardian.com
