From "The Analyst":

RESTRAINT OR ESCALATION? UKRAINIAN OPTIONS AND MEANS

It’s become clear that the US did indeed ask Ukraine not to attack oil refineries in Russia, during a meeting at the Munich security conference. Veep Harris communicated it to Zelensky in person. He wasn’t very amused by it and did it anyway.
Putin later claimed that the attacks on power stations were revenge.
This is blatant nonsense. Russia has been trying to destroy the power plants for two years, increasing air defences made it harder and the Russians got fed up with losing so many missiles for no result. Once they realised the air defences were depleted they started again. The refineries had nothing to do with it. That was Putin cleverly playing into the hands of weak minded ‘escalationist’ politicians in America and Europe.
The whole concept of escalation in the Ukraine war is a complex one.
Russia is allowed to attack Ukraine with whatever it likes whenever it wants to - with the exception of WMD’s. They would almost certainly illicit a different kind of response, and this has been strongly communicated to the Kremlin.
Ukraine can only use weapons it makes itself on Russian territory proper. Supplied weapons from the west can only be used inside the 1991 frontiers of Ukraine.
The Americans resisted supplying ATACAMS on the grounds Ukraine might used them against Russia then relented and handed over just enough too late to make a difference in last year’s offensive. When has Ukraine ever used western weapons where it was specifically asked not to? It never has. Yet the same argument is used by Germany over Taurus. The spurious argument that German troops would have to enter Ukraine to assist in targeting is laughable. As one German source told me, ‘you could set the targeting of the missile in Poland and ship it into Ukraine and link it up with the Su-24 the same way the RAF and French air forces do remotely’. It’s just an excuse to avoid upsetting the Russians and giving them the tiniest fragment of an opportunity to claim escalation.
So much of Ukraine’s resistance and capabilities have been restrained by western concerns over escalation it’s become a joke. Yet every time a new line is crossed - including the supply of fighter aircraft - it’s made no difference. What more can Russia use or do it hasn’t already? Does it really want to widen this war into a NATO-Russia conflict? What benefit would that bring Russia? None. None at all. For a start it would bring in a level of air forces that would decimate Russian forces in Ukraine. This isn’t what they want at all. It’s taking their entire national effort to keep the war they started going.
There is an old principle that applies to wars as much as individuals.
The gun is just a lump of metal, the bullet the same. It could sit there for a thousand years and it’s still a lump of metal. It takes a human to pick it up and use it. Weapons are sold all over the world. Do we take responsibility for their use by the buyer? No. It’s the buyer who decided to use them, not us. So why is Ukraine any different?
Ukraine has also reached the point where its understanding about only using domestically produced weapons in Russia has reached new levels.
One of the most secret of its programs is the never mentioned ballistic missile. That was known to be under development before the war started. Rumours of its existence continue to circulate intermittently. Keeping it under wraps - such things require large production sites - won’t be easy. I suspect it’s been moved into a mountain complex in the Carpathians and is still some way off.
The production of a new long range (1000km) version of the Neptune anti shipping missile has already been revealed.
I have long wondered if a change of guidance system and software would enable it to be used over land as a cruise missile. It has land based launchers. Think how the Tomahawk was developed as such over many years and is still in production today. Are we seeing a new capability introduced?
Necessity is the mother of invention.