‘Let Ukrainians do what they’re good at’ as Trump’s ex-envoy backs explosive deep strikes on Russia

Kyiv is being urged to exploit divisions inside Donald Trump’s circle, intensify attacks on Russian oil infrastructure and reject an energy truce that leaves Moscow free to strike Ukrainian targets, exposing a widening fault line over how the war should be fought.

Ukraine should use growing divisions within Donald Trump’s political orbit to protect its interests and escalate its campaign against Russia’s oil infrastructure, rather than accept what critics describe as a one-sided ceasefire, according to Ukrainian strategic communications expert Yurii Bohdanov.

The argument comes as Keith Kellogg, Trump’s former special envoy for Ukraine, has publicly backed Kyiv’s right to strike targets deep inside Russia — a position that sits uneasily alongside the US president’s repeated calls for Ukraine to halt attacks on Russian oil refineries.

For Kyiv, the contradiction presents both an opportunity and a danger. Divisions among Trump’s advisers could create room for Ukraine to defend its military strategy. But uncertainty over Washington’s direction threatens to complicate the search for a durable settlement as Russian attacks continue.

Bohdanov, speaking on RBC-Ukraine’s TSE BAZA podcast, argued that weakening Trump’s political position could reduce the risk of damaging decisions being imposed on Ukraine. He pointed to a lack of coordination within the Republican Party and tensions between Trump and figures who have served in or around his administration.

Read more related news:

He cited Kellogg’s recent criticism of Trump as evidence of a wider disconnect between the president and elements of his own circle.

“This is a huge disconnect with his own inner circle, and we must take this into account and wait for a moment when his position weakens,” Bohdanov said.

His argument reflects Kyiv’s dilemma: Ukraine remains dependent on Western support while confronting pressure to accept compromises that could constrain its ability to strike back against Russian attacks.

On the battlefield, Bohdanov acknowledged that Ukraine would have to endure Russian air assaults for some time. But he argued that Moscow’s missile stockpiles were finite and that Kyiv should maintain a forceful response, including systematic attacks on Russian oil infrastructure.

He rejected proposals for an energy truce that would stop Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil facilities while allowing Moscow to continue hitting Ukraine’s energy assets, including the battered Kremenchuk oil refinery.

“We can agree to an energy truce, but not the Trumpist kind, where we stop striking Russian oil and they stop attacking the already battered Kremenchuk Oil Refinery,” he said. “No, that is not a truce; it’s some kind of nonsense.”

Instead, Bohdanov argued, Ukraine must retain the capacity to escalate in response to Russian attacks — a strategy designed to impose costs on Moscow rather than allow it to dictate the terms of restraint.

Kellogg’s intervention gives that position additional weight within the debate over US policy. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, the former envoy said Ukraine should have full freedom to strike targets on Russian territory.

Drawing on the Vietnam War, he argued that military campaigns should not permit an adversary to establish safe havens beyond the reach of attack. Russia had repeatedly struck Ukrainian energy infrastructure, he said, giving Kyiv grounds to target facilities deep inside Russia.

“Let Ukrainians do what they’ve been very good at,” Kellogg said, adding that Moscow was prolonging the war rather than winning it.

He dismissed Trump’s remarks about Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, including suggestions that Zelenskyy should consider stepping down, as “noise”. He also played down the prospect of a repeat of the confrontation between the two leaders in the Oval Office in February 2025.

Kellogg further argued that a diesel agreement between Washington and Moscow would not materially benefit Russia or affect the wider market. He suggested that Vladimir Putin was attempting to exploit the approaching US midterm elections and Trump’s current political position.

The former envoy portrayed the Russian president as acting from weakness rather than strength, citing estimates of Russian personnel losses ranging from 1.2mn to 1.5mn. Those figures are estimates, not independently established totals.

Trump has recently announced a diesel deal with Russia and claimed an energy truce had been reached, while repeatedly urging Kyiv to stop attacking Russian refineries. The apparent gap between those statements and Kellogg’s position has sharpened questions about the coherence of Washington’s approach.

For Ukraine, the central issue is whether diplomatic pressure will produce a reciprocal reduction in attacks or restrict Kyiv’s ability to retaliate while leaving Russian capabilities intact.

Bohdanov’s answer is unequivocal: Ukraine should exploit political divisions where it can, continue striking the infrastructure sustaining Russia’s war effort and refuse a settlement that imposes restraint on only one side.

The danger is that a strategy built around counter-escalation could deepen the conflict. But from Kyiv’s perspective, accepting an uneven truce carries its own risk: surrendering leverage without securing a meaningful reduction in Russian attacks.

As Trump’s policy shifts and voices inside his own camp diverge, Ukraine is left trying to distinguish a genuine route to peace from a pause that could favour Moscow.