What I'm saying is that the sheer quantity of combustible hydrocarbons burned after normal production is so much more than what is burned from a damaged well/pipeline.

Imagine a pipeline transports 1 million barrels of oil per day, but an explosion damages it so that 100,000 barrels are burned uncontrolled, but the pipeline is shut down for 10 days. Does burning that 100,000 cause more emissions than is saved by slowing down 10 million barrels of production from the wells that have nowhere to put the oil?

Aggregated across the entire oil market, the price signals and shortages start killing demand, too, so that the world as a whole burns less oil. So if even if the war causes 100 million barrels worth of emissions, if it slows down consumption by 1 million barrels per day for a year, isn't that a net negative in emissions?

(I know that uncontrolled burning causes lots of other pollution that wouldn't have otherwise been created, but if we're talking about just the CO2 it seems that war causing supply disruptions would be a net negative effect to global emissions)