Russian Energy Is Now at Ukraine’s Mercy 46%

By Keith Johnson67%

7/13/2026, 1:10:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Quote-first Misdirection, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 39.2% saturation with 258 hits. Analysis detected 1,620 faulty-reasoning hits from 659 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48% and a BS Rank of 46% (11,913 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.40% of the article peer group.

Ukraine’s drone war against Russia isn’t new. 
Its offensive against Russian energy assets isn’t new. 
But the scale, range, intensity, and impact of what Ukraine has done in just the last few months most certainly are. 
Kyiv has used its expanding arsenal of standoff weapons (mostly drones but also some cruise missiles) to bring the war home to Russia in a way that, for the first time since 2022, could actually tilt the scales. 
Omsk is a good example. 
That’s Russia’s largest oil refinery, and it is located in Siberia, more than 1,200 miles away from Ukraine. 
Its destruction last week was traumatic for locals and nearly as seismic inside the Kremlin. 
But Ukraine’s offensive never lets up: In the past few months, it has hit oil refineries, oil depots, oil export ports, and fuel tanks. 
The carnage that Kyiv’s drone fleet has wreaked on the Russian Black Sea tanker fleet this month is without precedent. 
“The picture has changed, and it changed this spring,” said Sergei Aleksashenko, a former deputy chairman of the Russian Central Bank who is now at the New Eurasian Strategies Centre. 
“This operation is a game-changer.” 
It changes the game in two different ways for Russia. 
First, and most visibly, Russians are now having to wait in long gas lines to fill up their tanks. 
Across the country, Russia’s ability to process crude oil into refined products that consumers use has been demonstrably degraded by Ukraine’s offensive. 
That goes for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and everything else. 
The country has started rationing. 
Russian state media is not taking it well. 
Russia has lost basically one-fifth of its refining capacity, from about 5.2 million barrels a day before the war to 3.8 million now, according to a recent study by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES). 
That marks Russia’s “lowest level in 21 years,” OIES said. 
There are two big differences between what has happened this year and what happened previously. 
One is the reach. 
The other is that the Ukrainian strikes are directed at things that are harder to repair, such as hydrocrackers that upgrade low-quality heavy gas oils into high-quality refined products such as gasoline and diesel. 
“A combination of greater geographical potential, multiple attacks and increasingly accurate targeting of more complex refining units, alongside the attacks on export infrastructure, is putting pressure on both the Russia domestic market and products export sales,” OIES said in its report. 
But there is another way that Russia is in a suboptimal position now: It is having trouble exporting products. 
Refined products bring in more money than crude does, especially if your crude is selling at a global discount, as Russian Urals is. 
Russia’s June exports of refined products took a hit. 
As the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, which tracks this traffic very closely, noted last week, “In June, Russia’s seaborne oil product loading volumes hit their lowest level on record.” 
Between not making stuff and not selling it, Russia is glum. 
“The war reached Russian territory,” Aleksashenko said. 
“Today, the whole country is affected by this crisis.” 
All of this comes at a time of renewed hype about U.S. congressional action against Russia, namely the Sanctioning Russia Act. 
The legislation, championed by U.S. 
Sen. 
Lindsey Graham—who died suddenly on Saturday—would give the president discretion to levy tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil. 
U.S. 
President Donald Trump has long frowned on the bill, but Graham told reporters in Kyiv shortly before his death that lawmakers had come up with a version that the White House had accepted. 
The bigger question is whether the stepped-up strikes, and their impact on the Russian economy, will change the Kremlin’s calculus. 
Four-plus years of sanctions, a weakish ruble, and international opprobrium haven’t. 
Ukraine’s threat is not going away. 
Kyiv can now make as many as 8 million drones a year. 
“This is a real crisis,” Aleksashenko said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.9%Keith Johnson: 5.0%Foreign Policy: 3.4%Confirmation Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Keith Johnson: 4.7%Foreign Policy: 2.6%Availability Heuristic5.2%This article: 3.8%Keith Johnson: 1.5%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.8%This article: 1.7%Keith Johnson: 0.7%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Hindsight Bias1.7%This article: 17.6%Keith Johnson: 4.3%Foreign Policy: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias17.6%This article: 4.2%Keith Johnson: 8.7%Foreign Policy: 5.0%Framing Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.6%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.9%Keith Johnson: 1.0%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Keith Johnson: 1.9%Foreign Policy: 1.8%Optimism Bias3.0%This article: 7.0%Keith Johnson: 8.9%Foreign Policy: 2.9%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 21.1%Keith Johnson: 12.0%Foreign Policy: 7.9%Negativity Bias21.1%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Keith Johnson: 0.8%Foreign Policy: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error1.2%This article: 1.7%Keith Johnson: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.6%Keith Johnson: 4.2%Foreign Policy: 1.3%Recency Bias15.6%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Keith Johnson: 1.0%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Ad Hominem2.9%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.5%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.4%Keith Johnson: 5.8%Foreign Policy: 2.9%Appeal to Authority24.4%This article: 3.8%Keith Johnson: 4.2%Foreign Policy: 1.7%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 1.3%Foreign Policy: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.9%Keith Johnson: 6.7%Foreign Policy: 4.9%Hasty Generalization2.9%This article: 3.2%Keith Johnson: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Red Herring3.2%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.5%Keith Johnson: 3.4%Foreign Policy: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion13.5%This article: 2.9%Keith Johnson: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.8%Begging the Question2.9%This article: 10.2%Keith Johnson: 2.6%Foreign Policy: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.2%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.8%Keith Johnson: 1.1%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.5%Keith Johnson: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Composition/Division1.5%This article: 2.9%Keith Johnson: 0.7%Foreign Policy: 1.2%Anecdotal2.9%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%Keith Johnson: 1.3%Foreign Policy: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Keith Johnson: 1.7%Foreign Policy: 1.8%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 21.2%Keith Johnson: 4.6%Foreign Policy: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection21.2%This article: 39.2%Keith Johnson: 11.5%Foreign Policy: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice39.2%This article: 1.2%Keith Johnson: 0.6%Foreign Policy: 1.1%Indoctrination1.2%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.6%Foreign Policy: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Keith Johnson: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

659 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech550writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageSergei Aleksashenko • 30 words • 100.0% coverageSergei Aleksashenko • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageOxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageOxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageSergei Aleksashenko • 7 words • 0.0% coverageSergei Aleksashenko • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSergei Aleksashenko • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sergei Aleksashenko

100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words53% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Quote-first Misdirection+54.3 ptsWriter: 9.5%Sergei Aleksashenko: 63.8%63.8%Unattributed Quote+51.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sergei Aleksashenko: 51.7%51.7%Biased Writer Voice-46.9 ptsWriter: 46.9%Sergei Aleksashenko: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Sergei Aleksashenko: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Sergei Aleksashenko: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.