Russia's Ryazan oil refinery suspends operations after drone strike, Reuters reports
Ukraine confirmed hitting the plant in an overnight drone strike on Jan. 24.
Oil storage facilities caught fire during the attack, sources told Reuters. The strike damaged a railway loading track and a hydroeater unit, which removes impurities from refined products.
"The railway loading equipment has been damaged. There have been no railways loadings, they stopped oil processing," one source said.
Another said the facility suspended all loadings since Jan. 24.
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and Ukraine's Special Operations Forces (SOS) launched a joint attack against the refinery on Jan. 24. An SBU source told the Kyiv Independent that the strike caused fires at three oil depots and a workshop.
Local residents reported another attack on the plant two nights later, circulating footage of explosions and fires at the site. The Kyiv Independent could not confirm whether the images depicted a new attack or the previous strike.
The Ryazan Oil Refinery, one of Russia's largest, has the capacity to process 17 million metric tons of oil per year. According to Reuters, the facility accounted for nearly 5% of Russia's total refining in 2024.
Kyiv considers oil refineries to be valid military targets, as profits from the fossil fuel industry fund Russia's war machine. Ukraine previously attacked the Ryazan refinery in May 2024.
Read also: Ukraine war latest: North Korean forces reportedly pull back from one front-line sector following heavy casualties
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
For Putin, 'Security Guarantees' on Ukraine Mean Something Different
Based on factual reporting, incorporates the expertise of the journalist and may offer interpretations and conclusions. Russia, Ukraine and European powers have all emerged from meetings with President Donald Trump in support of establishing security guarantees as part of a broader agreement to put an end to the bloody war between Moscow and Kyiv. Trump vowed to commit to Ukraine's postwar defense during his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders on Monday, a move welcomed by his visitors. He said Russian President Vladimir Putin had also agreed to accept guarantees on Ukraine during their meeting in Alaska on Friday in what the U.S. leader described as a "very significant step." What such guarantees look like, however, remains a core sticking point among the parties to the conflict, and efforts to find a common definition may be crucial to achieving a breakthrough. "The key issue with security guarantees lies in the differing understandings of their modalities," Alexander Chekov, lecturer at Moscow State Institute of International Relations' Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Russia, told Newsweek. On one hand, Chekov said that "Ukraine and Western European countries view these guarantees as Western security commitments to Ukraine, supported by a range of measures such as arms sales and military assistance to the Ukrainian army, increased military-technical cooperation, and potentially even the stationing of some European troops in Ukraine." "Russia, however, interprets security guarantees differently: not as unilateral Western commitments to Ukraine, but as a multilateral system of commitments that includes not only the West but also Russia itself and probably some major non-Euro-Atlantic powers," Chekov said. As such, he argued that "one of the determining factors for the success of future negotiations will be the ability to reconcile the Western perspective on guarantees with the Russian one." Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a joint news conference with U.S. President Donald Trump (out of frame) after participating in a U.S.-Russia summit on Ukraine at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on August... Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a joint news conference with U.S. President Donald Trump (out of frame) after participating in a U.S.-Russia summit on Ukraine at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. More ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images The 'Root Causes' Since the beginning of the conflict, launched full-scale by Russia in February 2022 after eight years of aiding allied separatists in eastern Ukraine and occupying Crimea, Putin has argued that the "root causes" for the war would need to be addressed in any settlement. Such language is key to the Russian narrative surrounding the conflict, portrayed not as a "war of aggression" as it is often styled in the West, but as a "special military operation" dedicated to safeguarding Russian-speaking minorities and, perhaps most importantly, blocking further NATO expansion near Russia's borders. Even prior to Putin coming to power at the dawn of the 21st century, Moscow, having green-lit the newly unified Germany's admission into NATO, opposed further states within the former Soviet sphere, such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, which joined the alliance in 1999. Six more rounds of expansion would follow, bringing the bloc to its current strength of 32 nations, including all of Russia's Eastern European neighbors with the exceptions of Belarus and Ukraine. Many entered for fear of a resurgent Russia looking to reassert its influence on the continent. Moscow has broadcast an opposing view—that it was NATO threatening Russian security. And Kyiv's ambitions to join the bloc, which predate the 2014 revolution that brought to power a pro-West government and set the conditions for the current crisis, have long drawn particular scorn from the Kremlin. Joshua Shifrinson, associate professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, cited a cable sent in 2008 by then-U.S. ambassador to Russia Bill Burns (later President Joe Biden's CIA chief) to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warning that "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)." "And it's not hard to understand why," Shifrinson told Newsweek. "No country wants a military alliance on its borders and that it doesn't have a handle on. We have to remember Ukraine has been historically important, and even empirically, just as a reality, important to the Russian economy, important to Russian national security." "We have to remember, too, that NATO was founded as an anti-Soviet Alliance. Large parts of it seen coming up to the Russian border is highly concerning," he added. "You don't need to believe in Russian imperial ambitions to say to one's self that, 'Look, the possibility of NATO including Ukraine could be highly detrimental to Russian security.'" After Moscow first began preparing for war in 2021 with a military buildup surrounding Ukraine on the pretext of conducting training exercises, Russia issued demands to the U.S. and NATO for "security guarantees" that would include the bloc pull back its post-Cold War presence in Eastern Europe. The conditions were dismissed after brief talks early the following year, with then-President Joe Biden's administration releasing intelligence concluding that Putin was on the precipice of ordering a large-scale invasion. Three and a half years later, Russian and Ukrainian forces remain locked in the deadliest combat the continent has seen since World War II. Meanwhile, NATO has only further expanded, counting Finland and Sweden as members in 2023 and 2024, respectively, and European states are undergoing a historic rearmament plan. A New Order for Europe While much focus has centered on the amount of territory seized by Russia—nearly a fifth of Ukraine—Chekov pointed out that the issue of land, along with economic measures, would need to be addressed as part of a broader agreement that also included security guarantees. "From the meeting in Alaska and the subsequent conference in Washington, we observed the institutionalization of several venues for negotiations on the Ukraine crisis," Chekov said. "These include security guarantees, territorial issues, and relief of Western sanctions imposed on Russia," he added. "All these topics are interdependent, and a final resolution of the Ukrainian crisis seems most promising if they are addressed together." Artem Kvartalnov, a former research fellow at the Russian Center for Policy Research now at the University of Texas at Austin, outlined what Moscow may desire in terms of reshaping the European security architecture in a way that neutralizes NATO entry into future conflicts, thus achieving Putin's long-held vision. "The key issue with a potential exchange involving security guarantees, as seen by many on both sides, is that Russia likely wants a multilateral arrangement in which Russia itself would have a say before any external guarantees could be triggered," Kvartalnov told Newsweek. "If there is a council of guarantors involving Russia itself that must authorize any use of force in response to external aggression against Ukraine, Russia will be able to block such authorizations, defeating the purpose of security guarantees," he added. Shifrinson echoed this view on Russia's aims, while noting that Europe would continue to seek a lasting U.S. role not just in this conflict but across the continent at a time when the Trump administration was increasingly pushing to shift the burden to allies. "Russia wants the ability to prevent Western intervention the future," he said. "So, if it's party part of the security guarantee, it can block a response, in some way, to a crisis in the future should a crisis occur." "I mean, look, the Europeans don't want to have to fight Russia for the future of Ukraine," he added, "but they are desperate, I think, to keep the U.S. involved in European security affairs." Moscow's position on the issue was voiced in a Telegram post Monday by Russian Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov. "Many EU leaders emphasize that the future peace agreement should provide reliable security guarantees for Ukraine," Ulyanov wrote. "Russia agrees with this. But it has every right to expect that Moscow will also receive effective security guarantees." (Left to right) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks as French President Emmanuel Macron and U.S. President Donald Trump listen during a meeting with European leaders in the East Room of the White House in Washington,... (Left to right) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks as French President Emmanuel Macron and U.S. President Donald Trump listen during a meeting with European leaders in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on August 18, 2025. More ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images The Trump Factor Between Russia's calls for a greater say on European security and U.S. allies demanding strict commitments enshrining Ukraine's defense lies Trump, who has issued both praise and criticism for both sides of the conflict. Trump has repeatedly expressed his belief that Putin was sincere in engaging in talks to end the war, following a period of heated rhetoric toward the Russian leader. Trump's latest meeting with Zelensky was also far more amicable than the explosive episode that erupted in the White House during their previous meeting in February. But there are key areas where Trump, who has positioned himself as the primary power broker in the peace talks, has broken with Kyiv and European allies, namely in eschewing efforts to seek a ceasefire prior to a final settlement, reiterating the necessity of "land swaps" as part of a deal and emphasizing Ukraine would not join NATO. As such, Trump's definition of security guarantees also appears to differ from those expressed by the European leaders who recently departed Washington, D.C. "There is a kind of underlying tension that has yet to be resolved, and that is, Trump has said no to NATO enlargement, no membership for Ukraine, and this is an administration that has a history of looking with skepticism at aid to Ukraine," Charles Kupchan, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relation and professor at Georgetown University, told Newsweek. "The vice president goes around saying, 'We're done, we're not sending any more arms to Ukraine,' and the idea that, somehow, we're going to give them a security guarantee that would obligate us to defend them, it doesn't really add up," he added. "And so, there are some internal contradictions here that have to be worked out." Also significant is the backlash Trump has received for considering security guarantees for Ukraine from influential voices in his "Make America Great Again" support base, many of whom have sought to push the president toward extracting the U.S. from the conflict. Trump on Tuesday clarified his stance, offering his "assurance" during an interview with Fox & Friends that any guarantees would not include the deployment of U.S. troops to Ukraine. He also revealed, however, that European allies may be willing to send soldiers and that the U.S. is "willing to help them with things," including air support. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated this stance during a press briefing that same day. "The president has definitively stated U.S. boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine, but we can certainly help in the coordination and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies," Leavitt said. "The president understands security guarantees are crucially important to ensure a lasting peace," she added, "and he has directed his national security team to coordinate with our friends in Europe and also to continue to cooperate and discuss these matters with Ukraine and Russia as well." Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics (second from right) tours near the construction of a fence, concrete and armored barriers that are being erected to fortify and secure the border with Russia and Belarus in Zaborje, Latvia.... Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics (second from right) tours near the construction of a fence, concrete and armored barriers that are being erected to fortify and secure the border with Russia and Belarus in Zaborje, Latvia. More Alexander Welscher/Picture-Alliance/DPA/AP The Limits of Guarantees But some experts have cast doubt as to the extent to which even a "coalition of the willing" among European powers may truly be willing to commit to such a task. As Franz-Stefan Gady, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, recently told Newsweek, "the hardest question that remains unanswered for Europe" boils down to "what does Ukraine really mean for Europe's security architecture, and what is Europe prepared to risk to ensure that Ukraine will remain an independent, pro-Western country?" "Are European countries prepared to go to war against Russia? If the answer is no, then any sort of European reassurance force in Ukraine, integrated with Ukrainian forces, will not be able to deter future Russian aggression," he said at the time. Kupchan also raised questions regarding the concept of a future European deployment to Ukraine, asking, "How much of a guarantee are these guarantees?" He wondered whether or not the U.S. and European allies would actually go to the lengths of ratifying defense treaties for Ukraine as they have with NATO's Article 5. "If the answer to that is no, and these agreements do not have parliamentary ratification, they may be Article 5-like, but the operative word there is 'like' in the sense that you might want to think about them more as assurances than guarantees," he said. And even if a deal were to manifest to end the war in Ukraine, he felt Europe was likely to remain "a divided continent" for some time to come, and that any progress in improving the tense security environment that exists between NATO and Russia would be incremental at best. "I could imagine, if this war comes to an end, some level of economic reintegration, some lowering of the sanctions, some progress on getting arms control, both nuclear and conventional, back up and running," Kupchan said, "but I think that the overall relationship will be highly distrustful, and you're going to see NATO on guard along its eastern flank for the foreseeable future." "Might there be a reallocation of U.S. military assets? Yes, especially if the war comes to an end, I think you'll definitely see a drawdown of the U.S. presence in Europe, not a departure, but a drawdown," he added. "But other than that, I think that if there is a sort of broader repair in the relationship between NATO and Russia, it will be glacial."
USA Today
4 minutes ago
- USA Today
Kim Jong Un's sister calls South Korea 'faithful dog' of Washington
SEOUL/WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - North Korea is stepping up criticism of South Korea's new President Lee Jae Myung as he prepares for his first summit with President Donald Trump, calling Lee's efforts to engage with Pyongyang a "pipedream". Since taking office in a snap election in June, the liberal Lee has taken steps to lower tensions with the nuclear-armed North, and the issue is one where he is expected to find common ground with Trump, who still boasts of his historic summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. But North Korea's envoys have yet to accept any of Trump's latest letters, and Kim's powerful sister, Kim Yo Jong, has issued a steady stream of dismissive statements rejecting and ridiculing Lee's overtures. "Lee Jae Myung is not the sort of man who will change the course of history," she told a gathering of North Korean diplomats, state news agency KCNA reported on Wednesday. She called South Korea a "faithful dog" of Washington, accused Lee of speaking gibberish, and said his government maintains a "stinky confrontational nature…swathed in a wrapper of peace". More: Meet Kim Yo Jong, the sister of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un Kim said the Lee administration is pursuing a two-faced policy of engagement as well as threatening joint military drills with the United States, which bases around 28,500 troops in South Korea as a legacy of the 1950-1953 Korean War. Leader Kim Jong Un has ordered his diplomats to take "preemptive counteraction" against enemy states, the KCNA report said, without providing details. In response to her statement, South Korea's presidential office said the administration would open a new era for joint growth with North Korea, and its recent measures were meant for the stability and prosperity of both Koreas. South Korea and its ally the United States kicked off joint military drills this week, including testing an upgraded response to heightened North Korean nuclear threats. More: North Korea's Kim Jong Un vows to win anti-US battle as country marks Korean War anniversary Earlier this week, Kim Jong Un said that the joint U.S.- South Korea drills were an "obvious expression of their will to provoke war" and that his country needed to rapidly expand its nuclear armament. North Korea has surged ahead with more and bigger ballistic missiles, expanded its nuclear weapons facilities, and gained new support from its neighbours. "The North Korean leader sees little need to engage with Washington since he is receiving far more substantial benefits from Russia with fewer conditions than he could attain from the United States," said Bruce Klingner, a former U.S. intelligence analyst now with the Mansfield Foundation. Still, Kim could eventually respond to Trump in the hopes of providing the American president the "illusion of success though it would do nothing to actually reduce the North Korean threat to the U.S. and its allies," he said. North Korea in recent years has also changed its policy toward the South, dismissing the idea of peaceful unification and called Seoul a main enemy. Lee this week ordered his cabinet to prepare a partial step-by-step implementation of existing agreements with North Korea, and South Korea has begun removing loudspeakers that had been blaring anti-North Korea broadcasts along the border. "There's nothing new here and it's not going to get them anywhere," said Jenny Town, managing director Washington-based North Korea project 38 North. More: North Korea wired an agent $2M to smuggle weapons, tech and disguises out of California If anything of substance is discussed at the summit it will likely be the joint drills, which Trump scaled back during his first term, Town said. (Reporting by Joyce Lee in Seoul and David Brunnstrom in Washington; additional reporting by Ju-min Park; Writing by Josh Smith; Editing by Stephen Coates and Michael Perry)
USA Today
4 minutes ago
- USA Today
As Netanyahu expands Gaza war, some reservists grow more disillusioned
JERUSALEM, Aug 19 (Reuters) - As Israel seeks to expand its offensive in Gaza, a measure of how the country's mood has changed in the nearly two-year-old conflict is the discontent evident among some reservists being called up to serve once again. Shortly after the October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel by Palestinian militant group Hamas, Israelis dropped everything -- honeymoons, studies and new lives abroad -- to rush home and fight. Now, some voice disillusionment with political leaders sending them back into battle, as the military prepares to take control of Gaza City, the enclave's biggest urban centre. According to a study conducted by Agam Labs at the Hebrew University which measured sentiment about the new campaign among more than 300 people serving in the current war, 25.7% of reservists said their motivation had decreased significantly compared with the start of the campaign. Another 10% said their motivation slightly decreased. Asked to describe their feelings about the campaign, the biggest group -- 47% -- of responders expressed negative emotions towards the government and its handling of the war and hostage negotiations. In March, before the latest offensive was announced, the Israeli news outlet Ynet reported that the amount of reservists reporting for duty was 30 percent below the number requested by military commanders. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to destroy Hamas after it attacked Israel in Oct. 7, 2023 in the bloodiest single day for Jews since the Holocaust, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies. But the war has dragged on, with Hamas still putting up a fight and Israelis condemning their prime minister for failing to reach a deal with the militant group to win the release of hostages despite many mediation efforts. 'THIS WAR IS ENTIRELY POLITICAL' Reservists were among thousands of Israelis who took part in a nationwide strike on Sunday, one of the biggest protests in support of families of hostages, calling on Netanyahu to reach an agreement with Hamas to end the war and release the remaining captives. One of those angry protesters was Roni Zehavi, a reservist pilot who stopped serving out of principle after more than 200 days of service when the last ceasefire fell through. He said that when reservists were enlisted, they did everything required without saying a word. But then questions such as "where is this going?" started to pop up, he recalled. Reservists accused the government - the most far-right administration in Israel's history -- of perpetuating the war for political reasons. "This war is entirely political, it has no goal except to keep Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister," he told Reuters. "He is willing to do everything necessary, to sacrifice the hostages, fallen soldiers, dead citizens - to do what he needs so that he and his wife will stay in power. It's the tragedy of the state of Israel and it's the reality". Asked for comment about the disenchantment voiced by some reservists, the Israeli military said it sees great importance in the reserve service and each case of absence is examined. "In this challenging security reality, the contribution of the reservists is essential to the success of missions and to maintaining the security of the country," it said. The prime minister's office was not immediately available for comment. Netanyahu has so far resisted calls to establish a state inquiry - in which he could be implicated - into the security failures of the October 7 attack. He has said such an investigation should not be launched as long as the war is still under way. Some of his far-right coalition partners have threatened to bring down the government should the war end without meeting all its stated goals. When Israel called up 360,000 reservists after the October 7 attack, the largest such compulsory mobilisation since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, it received an enthusiastic response. The mood among some reservists appears different now. 'I will not be part of a system that knows that it will kill the hostages. I'm just not prepared to take that. And I really fear that, to the point where it keeps me up at night," one combat medic told Reuters. He asked not to be identified as he was not authorized to speak. According to Israel's Channel 12, the military plans to call up 250,000 reservists for the Gaza City offensive. Israel has lost 898 soldiers and thousands have been wounded in the Gaza war, the country's longest conflict since the 1948 war that accompanied its creation. Its military response to the Hamas attack has killed over 61,000 people in Gaza, including many children, according to Gaza health authorities. 'LACK OF VISION' Military service is mandatory in Israel, a small nation of fewer than 10 million people, but it relies heavily on reservists in times of crisis. Reserve duty is technically mandatory, though penalties for evasion often depend on the willingness of the direct commander to enforce punishment. Reuters interviewed 10 Israeli reservists for this story. Like many other reservists, special forces Sergeant Major A. Kalker concluded that Israel's military and political leadership has failed to formulate a sound day-after plan for the war. "There's a lack of vision, both in the political and the senior military leadership, a real lack of vision," he said, but added that shouldn't amount to refusing to serve. "Bibi (Netanyahu) is the king of not making decisions … like treading water." Reservist Brigadier General Roi Alkabetz told Reuters that the military and Israel's Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir had transitioned to using the reservists in a "measured way", because Zamir understood the hardship for reservists and had put much of the hard work on soldiers in mandatory service. "He's doing it in a logical way," Alkabetz said. "The reservists will come." (Writing by Michael Georgy, Editing by William Maclean)
