Business & Economics
Ukrainian Sea-Drone Strike Shuts CPC Novorossiysk Terminal, Kazakhstan Files Diplomatic Protest
Before dawn on 29 Nov 2025, a naval drone blew out Single-Point Mooring 2 at the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s Black Sea terminal, halting crude loadings that normally carry about 1 % of global oil supply.
Focusing Facts
- Strike occurred 04:06 Moscow time, knocking out 1 of the port’s 3 moorings and cutting the route that ships roughly 80 % of Kazakhstan’s exports.
- Kazakhstan lodged a formal protest to Kyiv on 30 Nov 2025, calling the hit the facility’s third attack and a threat to bilateral ties.
- The CPC’s 1,500 km line moved 68.6 million t of crude in 2024 and is co-owned by KazMunayGas, Chevron, Lukoil, ExxonMobil and Russia.
Context
Seaborne sabotage of energy routes recalls the 1984–88 “Tanker War,” when Iran and Iraq targeted each other’s Gulf exports, prompting tanker insurance spikes and U.S. naval escorts. Like then, drones today shift the offense–defense cost curve: a few hundred-thousand-dollar craft can disable billion-dollar infrastructure and reroute commodity flows. The episode also highlights two structural trends: (1) weaponisation of globalised supply chains—civilian, foreign-owned assets are now fair game inside the combatant’s territory; (2) the growing strategic autonomy of mid-sized producers such as Kazakhstan, which must publicly rebuke a wartime ally to protect its single export artery. Over a century horizon, whether the Black Sea becomes a persistent drone-contested zone—analogous to how the Strait of Hormuz remained militarised after the 1980s—will shape how oil logistics, naval doctrines and the legal regime on freedom of navigation evolve. If left unchecked, the normalisation of drone strikes on civilian energy hubs may erode the post-1945 norm that kept most hydrocarbon lifelines off-limits, with cascading effects on energy security and great-power risk calculations far beyond Ukraine.
Perspectives
International wire services
e.g., ETAuto.com, BSS/AFP — Report that a naval-drone strike damaged the CPC’s Novorossiysk mooring, forcing a halt to loadings that handle about one percent of global oil, while withholding firm attribution for the attack. By sticking almost entirely to CPC statements and omitting Ukrainian or Russian framing, the coverage can appear ‘just-the-facts’ yet implicitly privileges official corporate and Russian port information over wider wartime context. ( ETAuto.com , Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) )
Pro-Russian official narrative echoed by Middle-East outlets
e.g., Arab News, Al Arabiya — Frame the naval-drone strike and tanker hits as Ukrainian ‘terrorist’ attacks on civilian energy infrastructure that endanger global security and freedom of navigation. Reliance on Russian Foreign Ministry quotes and repetition of the terrorism label foreground Moscow’s talking points while minimising Ukraine’s rationale and Russia’s invasion that set the stage for such strikes.
Western media highlighting Ukraine’s strategy against Russia’s oil revenues
e.g., Australian Broadcasting Corporation — Present the naval-drone attacks on tankers and the CPC terminal as part of Kyiv’s broader campaign to cripple Russian oil exports and thus its war-fighting funds, quoting Ukrainian security officials on the ‘significant blow’. Echoing Ukrainian claims about success and legitimacy may underplay collateral risks and legal controversies, implicitly endorsing tactics that disrupt global energy flows.