Ukrainian drones strike Russian energy infrastructure and fuel depots

There are workers, technicians, and civilians in the Russian regions targeted by Ukrainian drones who face the immediate threat of fire, toxic fumes, and structural collapse. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols exist to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, and to mandate precautions in attack to minimize harm to non-combatants. Is this distinction being maintained, or is the infrastructure of daily life being treated as a legitimate target for strategic degradation?

At Solferino, I did not see the grand strategy of Napoleon III or the tactical maneuvers of the Austrian army. I saw men lying in the mud, dying of thirst within sight of water, because no institution existed to bridge the gap between the battlefield and the hospital. Today, the gap is not merely physical; it is legal and moral. When drones strike oil pumping stations, refineries, and fuel depots, the immediate military logic is clear: degrade the adversary’s logistical capacity. But the humanitarian logic requires a different accounting. We must count not just the barrels of oil lost, but the people who work in those facilities, the communities that rely on the energy they produce, and the environmental hazards that threaten public health long after the smoke clears.

The rules of war are not abstract ideals; they are operational constraints designed to prevent the chaos I witnessed in 1859. Article 48 of Additional Protocol I requires parties to take constant care to spare the civilian population. Article 57 mandates precautions in attack, including verifying that targets are military objectives and choosing means and methods of warfare that minimize incidental loss of civilian life. When a refinery is struck, the question is not whether it is a military objective - energy infrastructure can be dual-use - but whether the attack was conducted with sufficient precision and warning to protect those who are not combatants.

Ukraine’s denial of striking the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is a critical data point in this compliance audit. Nuclear facilities are protected under Additional Protocol I, Article 56, unless they provide regular, significant, direct support to military operations and their destruction is the only feasible way to terminate such support. The denial suggests an awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of a nuclear incident, which would far exceed any military gain. This awareness is the first step toward compliance. But awareness is not enough. The institution of humanitarian law requires verification, transparency, and accountability.

The stakes here are not just economic or military; they are human. Energy infrastructure is woven into the fabric of civilian life. Heating, lighting, medical equipment, water purification - all depend on a stable energy supply. When that supply is disrupted, the suffering is not immediate and visible like a wound on the battlefield, but it is no less real. It is a slow, grinding pressure on the most vulnerable: the elderly, the sick, the poor. The humanitarian cost is measured in hypothermia, in failed dialysis machines, in the inability to keep food cold. These are not collateral damages to be ignored; they are the direct result of attacking infrastructure that serves both military and civilian needs.

We must also consider the institutional capacity to respond. Are there emergency services in place to handle fires and chemical spills? Are there evacuation plans for workers and nearby residents? Is there a mechanism for reporting violations and ensuring that those responsible are held accountable? The Red Cross and Red Crescent movements exist to fill these gaps, but they can only operate if they are granted access and protection. If humanitarian workers are denied entry to affected areas, or if their emblem is ignored, then the entire framework of international humanitarian law is undermined.

The principle of impartiality is not a moral aspiration; it is an operational requirement. The wounded soldier is a patient, not an enemy. The civilian worker is a victim, not a combatant. This distinction must be maintained even when the lines between military and civilian blur. The challenge is not to find a perfect solution, but to build institutions that can manage the imperfection. We need better monitoring, better reporting, and better enforcement. We need to count the suffering, name the rules, and demand compliance.

In the end, the question is not whether the attack was strategically successful. The question is whether the rules were followed. If they were not, then the victory is hollow, and the cost is paid in human lives. If they were, then we must ensure that the institutions designed to protect those lives are strengthened, not weakened. The alternative is a return to Solferino, where the only law is the law of the strongest, and the only mercy is chance. We have built a better system. We must not let it fail.