Ukraine Should Keep Striking Russian Refineries, Kellogg Says

Retired General Keith Kellogg is urging Ukraine to continue long-range strikes against Russian oil refineries. He argues that the attacks are a legitimate part of the war because they hit industrial facilities connected to Russia’s military-industrial complex. His view directly challenges calls for Kyiv to stop the strikes during diplomatic negotiations.

The key distinction, Kellogg says, is targeting. Ukrainian forces strike Russian refinery and petrochemical infrastructure, while Russian forces attack civilian sites such as schools, churches, electricity grids, and heating plants. Damaging refineries can disrupt fuel production and pressure Russia’s energy system.

The strikes have reportedly idled about 40 percent of Russia’s refining capacity. Kellogg believes Moscow’s diesel proposal may be designed to ease that pressure and persuade Washington to pressure Kyiv. Ukraine has rejected a unilateral halt, instead proposing a mutual energy armistice tied to an end to Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

An oil refinery is an industrial facility that processes crude oil into refined fuels, including diesel and gasoline. Refineries use specialized equipment to separate and chemically transform crude into products that vehicles, farms, businesses, and military forces can use. They are therefore critical links between crude oil supplies and everyday fuel markets.

When refinery units are damaged, crude oil cannot be processed at the same rate. The country may have fuel in storage or crude underground, but its ability to produce finished diesel and gasoline falls. That shortage can push authorities to protect domestic supplies, restrict exports, or seek fuel from other sellers.

The article reports that Ukrainian drone strikes damaged primary distillation and refining units across Russia. Approximately 40 percent of Russia’s refining capacity was reportedly idled. Moscow then imposed domestic fuel export bans, showing how physical refinery damage can affect both Russia’s internal market and international fuel trade.

The article reports that Ukrainian drone strikes have idled approximately 40 percent of Russia’s refining capacity. This is a measure of refinery capability that is no longer operating normally, rather than a claim that 40 percent of Russia’s crude oil has disappeared. The figure indicates a major disruption to the systems that turn crude into usable fuel.

The damage reportedly affected primary distillation and refining units across Russia. Those units are essential to processing crude oil into products such as diesel and gasoline. When enough units stop operating, refineries produce less finished fuel, even if crude supplies remain available. The effect can spread from individual facilities into national fuel policy.

The reported disruption has already been linked to Russia’s domestic fuel export bans. It also forms the background to Moscow’s proposed diesel shipments to the United States and global markets. The article presents the arrangement as a possible effort to relieve pressure on Russia’s energy sector and stop further attacks.

The refinery strikes have reduced Russia’s ability to produce finished fuel for its own market. The article reports that damage to primary distillation and refining units idled approximately 40 percent of Russia’s refining capacity. With less processing capacity available, Moscow faced pressure to preserve fuel supplies at home.

One concrete response was domestic fuel export bans. Limiting exports keeps more available fuel inside Russia instead of sending it to international buyers. The article also describes a proposed diesel arrangement with the United States and global markets. Deliveries were announced at more than 300,000 metric tons initially, 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons thereafter.

The arrangement did not end the dispute over refinery attacks. Kellogg viewed the diesel proposal as potentially connected to efforts to halt Ukrainian strikes, while Ukraine rejected a unilateral pause. Kyiv instead proposed stopping refinery strikes only if Russia ended attacks on Ukraine’s electricity grid and heating plants.

Russia’s diesel agreement may be connected to refinery attacks because those strikes have damaged processing capacity and increased pressure on the country’s energy sector. Retired General Keith Kellogg said Moscow likely has ulterior motives beyond simply selling fuel. He suggested the proposal could help Russia manage the effects of attacks on its domestic petrochemical infrastructure.

The proposed mechanism is diplomatic as well as commercial. By offering diesel to the United States and international markets, Moscow may create a reason for Washington to protect the arrangement. Kellogg believes the Kremlin hopes American negotiators will use talks over ending the war to pressure Ukraine into suspending refinery strikes.

The article does not say that Russia’s motive has been proven. It reports Kellogg’s assessment. The agreement allows large prospective deliveries, while Ukrainian officials continue rejecting a unilateral halt. Kyiv has instead offered a mutual energy armistice covering both Russian refinery strikes and Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy facilities.

Ukraine’s alternative is a mutual energy armistice. Under the proposal, Kyiv would halt strikes against Russian refineries only if Moscow stopped attacking Ukraine’s electricity grid and heating plants. The idea treats energy infrastructure as a two-sided security issue rather than asking Ukraine to give up its attacks alone.

The mechanism is reciprocal: each side would stop a defined category of energy-related attacks in exchange for the other side doing the same. This differs from Washington’s reported request that Kyiv unilaterally halt strikes on Russian refineries to stabilize consumer fuel benchmarks. Ukraine has rejected that demand.

The proposal has not been adopted by Moscow. It also was not included in the White House’s commercial diesel arrangement. As a result, refinery strikes and attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure remain separate parts of the conflict, while the proposed diesel deal continues to generate debate in Washington.

Sanctions are government-imposed legal restrictions on trade, finance, or other dealings with a country, company, or person. In this case, sanctions can make it illegal for certain buyers to purchase Russian petroleum or for sellers and financial institutions to support those transactions. They can therefore shrink the pool of lawful trading partners.

A sanctions waiver is a temporary permission or exemption from a restriction. The article says the US Treasury issued a general license authorizing transactions involving Russian diesel through April 7, 2027. That license allowed covered buyers and sellers to conduct transactions that might otherwise have been blocked under US sanctions rules.

The waiver changed the immediate legal position for Russian diesel, but it did not erase every restriction. It was issued shortly before statutory penalties under the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, which mandates tariffs and sanctions on buyers of Russian petroleum. The result is a temporary and contested trading pathway.