Experts: Sanctions less effective than Ukraine's attacks on Russia's oil ports

International sanctions to pressure Russia into ending its war in Ukraine have not been as effective as Kyiv's strikes on Russian ports and will leave a big hole in Russia's budget, Estonian experts said.
Last week, Ukraine attacked two of Russia's most important ports on the Baltic Sea, Primorsk near the Finnish border and Ust-Luga close to Estonia. The drone attacks damaged infrastructure and started large fires, suspending exports.
Russia exports 60 percent of its oil by sea, via the Baltic Sea. Calculations by the Reuters news agency show that at least 40 percent of Russia's oil export volumes have been halted. This will leave a significant hole in the state budget.
The strikes are unlikely to end the war, but they are the most impactful countermeasure since the start of the full-scale war, experts say.
"This has an enormous impact, especially considering that in 2022, revenues from Russia's oil exports were €242 billion. In 2025, this was €200 billion, an 18 percent decline. This has had the greatest overall impact since the war in Ukraine began. No sanction has been as effective as what Ukraine has now managed to do," said Alan Vaht, a member of the management board of Terminal, Estonia's oldest fuel retailer.
Approximately 3.5 million barrels of oil are usually exported from Russia every day.
"If 40 percent of exports via Ust-Luga and Primorsk are down, this would mean a daily financial loss for Russia of about $50 to $55 million every single day," Vaht told Saturday's "Aktuaalne kaamera".
In addition to oil refining, Russia also produces large amounts of fuel oil for export. As it can no longer be sold abroad, the surplus will disrupt the whole production process, reducing the production and export of oil products even more than crude oil exports.
"If too much fuel oil accumulates, it can no longer be produced, and if more fuel oil cannot be produced, then diesel, gasoline, and kerosene will also stop coming out. So not just 40 percent, but 50 percent is affected because of this. Product exports are likely to be halted for some time, even more so than crude oil exports themselves," said economic expert Raivo Vare.
Workers at the Port of Ust-Luga, around 30 kilometers from Estonia's eastern border, have begun protesting – something not previously seen in Russia.
"Workers began protesting because the port was shut down and a police car drove into the workers. This has not happened before. Discontent has emerged," Vare said.
Drone attacks on Russian ports are not expected to affect Estonia significantly for now. On Saturday, smoke from a fire at Ust-Luga was visible in Narva and the eastern Estonian city of Sillamäe.
Due to a southwesterly wind, a thousand-kilometer-long plume of smoke moved over Lake Ladoga toward northwestern Russia, making it unlikely that the smoke will reach Estonia.
"Let's put it this way: if in the coming days — at the beginning of the month — smoke is still an issue, then a northerly wind could push it in this direction, but fortunately, there is still some time before that," said Kaido Ennok, a meteorologist at the Environment Agency.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Helen Wright, Johanna Alvin
Source: Aktuaalne kaamera

Facts Only

Ukraine conducted drone attacks on Russia's Primorsk and Ust-Luga ports on the Baltic Sea.
The attacks damaged infrastructure and caused large fires, suspending oil exports.
Russia exports 60% of its oil by sea, primarily through the Baltic Sea.
At least 40% of Russia's oil export volumes have been halted due to the strikes.
In 2022, Russia's oil export revenues were €242 billion; in 2025, they were €200 billion, an 18% decline.
Daily financial losses for Russia from the disrupted exports are estimated at $50–55 million.
Fuel oil surpluses may disrupt broader oil product production, affecting diesel, gasoline, and kerosene exports.
Workers at the Port of Ust-Luga protested after the port's shutdown, with reports of police intervention.
Smoke from the Ust-Luga fire was visible in Narva and Sillamäe, Estonia, but is not expected to reach Estonia soon due to wind patterns.
Meteorologists note that a northerly wind could push smoke toward Estonia in the coming days.

Executive Summary

Ukraine's recent drone strikes on two key Russian oil ports—Primorsk and Ust-Luga—have disrupted approximately 40% of Russia's seaborne oil exports, creating a significant financial strain on Moscow's budget. These attacks, which damaged infrastructure and triggered large fires, have suspended exports and led to worker protests at the Port of Ust-Luga, an unprecedented development in Russia. Experts estimate daily losses of $50–55 million for Russia, with broader disruptions expected in oil product exports due to accumulating fuel oil surpluses. While sanctions have had limited impact, these strikes are considered the most effective countermeasure since the war began, though they are unlikely to end the conflict. The environmental impact, such as smoke plumes visible in Estonia, remains contained for now due to weather conditions, but future wind shifts could affect neighboring regions.

Full Take

The strongest version of this narrative highlights Ukraine's strategic shift from relying on international sanctions to direct military action, achieving tangible economic disruption against Russia. The strikes on Primorsk and Ust-Luga demonstrate Kyiv's ability to target critical infrastructure, forcing Moscow to confront logistical and financial setbacks. The worker protests at Ust-Luga suggest internal instability, a rare occurrence in Russia's tightly controlled environment. However, the narrative also carries potential manipulation patterns, such as exaggerating the long-term impact of the strikes or framing them as a definitive turning point without broader context.
Root cause analysis reveals an underlying assumption that economic pressure alone can alter Russia's war calculus, a premise that has historically proven unreliable. The focus on short-term financial losses obscures deeper systemic resilience in Russia's energy sector, including rerouting exports or adapting to sanctions. The second-order consequences—such as global oil price fluctuations or retaliatory escalation—remain unaddressed, leaving readers with an incomplete picture of the risks involved.
Bridge questions: How might Russia adapt its export strategies to mitigate these disruptions? What are the ethical implications of targeting civilian infrastructure, even in wartime? Would a sustained campaign of such strikes actually change Russia's strategic goals, or merely prolong the conflict under different economic conditions?
Counterstrike scan: If this narrative were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would emphasize Ukraine's tactical successes while downplaying Russia's capacity to absorb losses or retaliate. The actual content aligns with this pattern by focusing on immediate disruptions without exploring countermeasures or long-term resilience. However, the inclusion of worker protests and meteorological details adds nuance, reducing the likelihood of outright propaganda.
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity (selective focus on short-term impacts without broader context), ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (implied effectiveness of strikes as a war-ending measure while acknowledging their limitations).