JD Vance ‘tells Ukraine to stop targeting oil tankers because it was affecting US companies’
US Vice-President JD Vance privately urged Ukraine to stop striking oil tankers near the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) terminal at Novorossiysk after the attacks began hurting American energy firms, according to Ukrainian officials cited by the Financial Times. Ukraine has been waging a long-range drone campaign against Black Sea shipping to disrupt oil revenues funding Russia's war, but Washington grew concerned this was also damaging US business interests, since Chevron and ExxonMobil hold major stakes in the CPC pipeline and the Kazakh oilfields feeding it.
Kyiv has not hit tankers near the CPC terminal since Vance raised the issue with President Volodymyr Zelensky in a call on 31 July, and Ukraine reportedly agreed not to target CPC infrastructure or non-sanctioned, non-Russian vessels. The attacks had already caused significant disruption, with CPC throughput falling to 1.3 million barrels a day in July, down over 300,000 from June and 600,000 from May, while shipping and insurance rates more than doubled; vessels chartered by both Exxon and Chevron were struck during the campaign, and this is not the first time Washington has warned Kyiv over strikes affecting US interests near Novorossiysk.
- Vance asked Ukraine to stop drone strikes on tankers near Novorossiysk's CPC oil terminal
- Chevron and ExxonMobil have major stakes in the pipeline and Kazakh oilfields involved
- Ukraine has complied since a 31 July call, though attacks had cut CPC oil flows sharply
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Vance’s reported intervention could argue that the United States has a legitimate interest in preventing the war from disrupting international shipping and harming its own companies, particularly where attacks may threaten wider Black Sea trade or environmental safety. They may contend that close allies should coordinate military actions where those actions carry significant economic and diplomatic spillover, and that limiting attacks on commercial tankers can reduce the risk of escalation while preserving support for Ukraine’s broader defence.
The case against
Critics could argue that Ukraine, facing a full-scale invasion, has a reasonable right to target shipping that materially supports Russia’s war effort, including oil exports that help finance it. They may say that asking Kyiv to spare such vessels because of effects on US companies places commercial interests above Ukraine’s security, and risks restricting one of the few ways Ukraine can impose costs on Russia when it is under sustained attack.