When in 2022 the West decided to tap strategic oil reserves to curb prices following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it worked. The United States released over 180 million barrels from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve — the largest amount in history. Prices slowed. But reserves were never replenished to pre-war levels.
This very concern formed the basis of a new IMF warning: the next shock to the oil market will have far more serious consequences than previous ones — because the safety cushion is gone.
A Buffer That No Longer Exists
According to IMF estimates, commercial and government oil inventories in OECD countries remain substantially below the average indicators of the last decade. This means that in the event of a sudden supply disruption — a geopolitical conflict, a natural disaster, a sudden OPEC+ decision — governments will simply have nothing to extinguish the fire.
The Fund emphasizes: replenishing reserves is not just a logistical task, but a macroeconomic necessity. Countries that ignore this tool are essentially shifting future costs onto consumers and taxpayers.
Real Conflict: Low Prices Now vs. Resilience Later
Here lies the main tension. Buying oil for reserves is profitable at low prices — but that's precisely when governments feel the least political pressure to do so. When prices rise, replenishing reserves only heats up the market and hurts ratings.
The United States under the Biden administration announced plans to repurchase oil at around $79 per barrel — but only partially implemented these plans. Congress blocked some purchases, citing budget constraints. As a result, the American strategic reserve as of early 2025 remains approximately 40% below its peak levels.
What This Means for Ukraine
For a country at war whose economy is critically dependent on energy prices and the positions of its allies, oil volatility is not an abstraction. A sharp jump in oil prices directly affects the cost of logistics, power generation, and military supply. At the same time, it puts pressure on donor countries' budgets, forcing them to reconsider spending priorities.
The IMF directly states: the energy vulnerability of developed economies is a systemic risk, not a local problem of a specific country.
What the IMF Proposes
The Fund is not limited to diagnosis. Among its recommendations are coordinated reserve replenishment during price downturns, transparent reporting mechanisms on inventory levels, and strengthened international coordination through the International Energy Agency.
The problem is that all these measures require political will precisely when the crisis has not yet occurred — and therefore voters don't notice them or reward them.
If governments continue to postpone reserve replenishment until the next price drop, which may not come in time, — who and how quickly will be able to stabilize the market at the moment of the next shock?
