What happened
At a briefing on February 24, Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, Olha Stefanishyna, reported that after a Ukrainian attack by unmanned systems on the port of Novorossiysk in November 2025 she received a phone call from a senior official at the U.S. State Department. According to her, Washington's reaction concerned the impact of the strike on American economic interests that transit through Kazakhstan and use infrastructure in Novorossiysk (details — CNN, Suspilne).
What exactly the ambassador said
"We heard that the Ukrainian attacks on Novorossiysk affected some American investments that are routed through Kazakhstan. And we heard from the State Department that we should refrain from, you know, attacks on American interests."
— Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S.
"I am very, very sorry that in 35 years of Ukraine's independence, having so many opportunities, we still have not reached a situation where we could have done the same."
— Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S.
Why the U.S. reacted that way
The State Department's response, as described by the ambassador, was not focused on the legitimacy of strikes against Russian military or energy infrastructure, but on the consequences for American investments. This is logical: states often protect their economic interests through diplomatic channels to avoid unpredictable economic risks for businesses and regional stability. Analysts note that when strikes affect cross-border supply chains or investment projects, partners' reactions can be more pragmatic than public.
Context: Novorossiysk and Kazakhstan
On November 29, 2025, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium reported the loss of an offshore berth in the waters of Novorossiysk — an incident the consortium linked to an attack by unmanned boats. The next day Kazakhstan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a protest, noting that this had harmed bilateral relations with Ukraine. It is precisely such chain effects that raised concern in the U.S.: essentially, a strike in the Black Sea basin touched projects in which third countries have an interest.
Consequences for Ukraine
The first consequence is the need to balance tactical strikes that have military logic with strategic consequences for international support. The second is the diplomatic cost: even if an operation made military sense, it can generate temporary tension with partners whose economies are directly affected. The third is a signal to Kyiv: partners will monitor not only the effectiveness of strikes, but also their collateral economic effects.
What's next?
The ball is now in the partners' court: Washington has already expressed concern, its issue being the protection of its own investments. Ukraine will have to explain its operational logic and minimize collateral economic risks for allies in order not to lose political and material support. Experts agree that such reactions are not the end of assistance, but a signal of the need for deeper coordination between military and diplomatic headquarters.
Sources: briefing by Olha Stefanishyna (24.02.2026), reports from CNN and Suspilne; statements from the Caspian Pipeline Consortium and Kazakhstan's MFA (29–30.11.2025).
Conclusion: The U.S. démarche is not just a remark. It is an indicator that the success of operations is measured not only tactically but also by the ability to preserve strategic alliances and the economic stability of partners. Kyiv must turn operational victories into long-term trust so that strikes are both effective and politically sustainable.
