Rosneft — from 773 billion rubles (2024) to 245 billion (2025)Lukoil — from 590 billion to 287 billionGazprom Neft — from 328 billion to 150 billionTatneft — from 151 billion to 58 billionAccording to Bloomberg, this decline is linked to low oil prices, widening discounts caused by EU sanctions and U.S. actions, as well as the abnormal ruble.The author of the Resurgam channel, an expert in foreign affairs, explains that oil revenues, while officially accounting for roughly 30% of Russia’s budget, are far more important in practice. He says these revenues are the primary source of foreign currency sustaining Moscow’s shadow economy, including mechanisms for evading sanctions and funding covert operations. The expert believes that targeting the oil sector, therefore, strikes directly at the Kremlin’s financial lifeline.Flexibility of Russia’s oil industryThe Resurgam author highlights a key feature of Russia’s oil sector: its flexibility. In times of low global prices, companies have historically offset losses by increasing the refining of crude oil into petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, and bitumen. This is achieved through delaying maintenance shutdowns and maximizing facility throughput.By doing so, Russian companies can smooth out revenue fluctuations: losses in one area are partially compensated by gains in another. In recent years, this flexibility has allowed Moscow to weather EU and U.S. sanctions. When restrictions complicated crude exports — whether through banking restrictions, insurance bans, or shipping challenges — companies redirected volumes into domestic refineries. Refining allowed the Kremlin to maintain revenue streams even when direct exports were restricted.Domestic vs. export capacitiesAccording to the expert, Russia’s refining capacities can be divided into two categories:Domestic-oriented refineries — serving internal consumption, including military and industrial needs. These volumes are effectively “locked in” and cannot be reduced to offset revenue losses from sanctions or low prices.Export-oriented refineries — supplying foreign markets and generating critical foreign exchange. These volumes are flexible and represent Moscow’s buffer against price shocks or external sanctions.The author stresses that this distinction is crucial. Any operational disruption that affects export-oriented capacity hits the Kremlin’s financial flexibility directly, while domestic capacity continues to serve internal needs.Why Ukrainian strikes matterThe Resurgam expert emphasizes that Ukrainian strikes on refineries target the export side of Russia’s oil industry. He explains: “When the Ukrainian military hits oil facilities, they are really striking export revenues. Domestic volumes cannot be reduced, so the losses fall entirely on the export segment.”Russia operates about 38 major refineries with capacities above one million tons per year, accounting for roughly 90–93% of national refining output — about 300 million tons annually. Strikes on even a portion of these plants create disproportionate effects, as disrupted crude flows must be redistributed to less efficient facilities, increasing costs, slowing exports, and reducing product quality.Multiplicative effects on Moscow’s economyThe expert notes that repeated or sustained disruptions to export-oriented refineries overwhelm Russia’s adaptive capacity. In normal conditions, low prices or temporary sanctions could be mitigated by increasing throughput. Under persistent attacks, however, the Kremlin faces a dual challenge: declining revenues and logistical bottlenecks that amplify economic strain.Reduced export revenue forces Moscow to either draw down foreign reserves or sell oil at steep discounts to alternative markets. Both options erode financial resilience. At the same time, domestic obligations and military needs prevent Russia from reallocating crude or refined products to offset losses. In effect, export-focused refinery strikes cannot be mitigated internally, making them one of the most effective tools for weakening Russia’s oil-dependent economy.Strategic implicationsThe Resurgam analyst concludes that coordinated sanctions and targeted strikes form a sustained pressure campaign. By systematically undermining export revenues, Ukraine and its partners are attacking the Kremlin’s core financial lifeline.He believes that this approach has long-term strategic consequences:It reduces Moscow’s ability to fund military operations and covert networks.It constrains the Kremlin’s capacity to evade sanctions.It increases internal economic pressure, forcing the state to make difficult trade-offs between domestic needs and foreign revenue.