As the Russia-Ukraine War approaches its fifth year, the struggle over energy resources has moved beyond military developments on the front line and become one of the main factors shaping the diplomatic and economic future of the war. Ukraine’s intensification of its attacks on Russian oil infrastructure and the increasingly harsh stance of United States (US) President Donald Trump towards these attacks are creating new tension in relations between Washington and Kyiv. Trump’s agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to increase the supply of diesel fuel, meanwhile, raises important questions about the extent to which the US policy of economic pressure on Russia can be sustained.[i] These developments show that energy security and the goal of ending the war do not always coincide; on the contrary, they can create new disagreements owing to the differing priorities of the parties.
For Ukraine, attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure are not aimed solely at inflicting economic damage. Oil refineries, fuel depots and shipping terminals play an important role in sustaining the logistical capacity of the Russian army. For this reason, the Kyiv administration is seeking to achieve gains that are difficult to obtain directly on the front line by targeting Russia’s war economy. The attack on the Novoshakhtinsk oil facilities in the Rostov region is also a continuation of this strategy. The importance of the region, notable for its proximity to the Donbas front, for oil shipments links the military and economic consequences of the attack. Ukraine aims to raise the cost to Moscow of continuing the war by keeping Russia’s fuel production and distribution capacity under pressure.
However, the targeting of energy infrastructure is no longer a matter confined within Russia’s borders. The international nature of the markets for oil and petroleum products means that disruptions in production and export capacity can create price pressure in other countries as well. This interdependence lies at the root of the Trump administration’s reaction to Ukraine’s attacks. For the US, while damage to Russian energy facilities is a development that could limit Moscow’s economic capacity, it can also adversely affect the American economy if it drives up global diesel prices. Consequently, a clear contradiction emerges between Washington’s goal of maintaining economic pressure on Russia and its priority of lowering energy prices in the domestic market.
It is no coincidence that this contradiction has become visible particularly ahead of the US midterm elections to be held in November 2026. Fuel prices are among the economic indicators that directly affect the daily lives of American voters. Rising prices for diesel, which is used in many sectors ranging from agricultural production to transport, can put pressure on production costs and inflation. Trump’s defence of his agreement with Putin on the basis of the needs of the American economy shows that foreign policy decisions cannot be assessed independently of domestic political calculations. In this respect, the limited cooperation established with Russia in the field of energy can be read not only as a shift in Washington’s Ukraine policy but also as an effort to manage the economic conditions of the upcoming elections.
However, the most controversial aspect of Trump’s approach is that he directs his discontent with Ukraine’s military strategy directly at the country’s political leadership. His statement that Volodymyr Zelenskyy should be replaced by a new leader capable of making a deal carries the divergence of views between Washington and Kyiv beyond energy policy. There is an important difference between criticising an ally’s war strategy and openly raising the issue of a change of government in that country. Trump’s statements indicate that American pressure on Ukraine’s independence in decision-making on war and peace may increase. This suggests that US support for Ukraine may become dependent not only on Russia’s military activities but also on the extent to which Kyiv aligns itself with Washington’s diplomatic priorities.
The problem Ukraine faces deepens at this point. While the Kyiv administration targets energy facilities in order to limit Russia’s military capacity on the one hand, it needs US intelligence, military aid and diplomatic support on the other. Claims that Washington could restrict intelligence sharing show how this dependence can turn into an instrument of pressure on Ukraine. A possible interruption in American support could affect not only current operations but also Ukraine’s long-term defence capacity. Nevertheless, no decision to halt intelligence cooperation has been finalised; there are differing accounts of the nature of the talks held between the parties on this issue.
For Russia, the developments create a different strategic opportunity. Although Ukraine’s attacks on refineries and terminals expose the vulnerabilities of Moscow’s energy sector, global markets’ need for Russian petroleum products provides the Kremlin with new room for diplomatic manoeuvre. The diesel agreement reached with Trump has the potential to strengthen Russia’s position in international energy markets once again. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the agreement constitutes an entirely new economic gain for Moscow. The fact that Russian officials had already begun to consider the possibility of easing restrictions on diesel exports shows that the understanding reached with Washington also coincides with Russia’s existing economic needs. Therefore, the Putin administration appears to have turned an export arrangement that was already on its agenda into an opportunity for political rapprochement with the US.
Another noteworthy aspect of this process is that, while Russia and Ukraine are mutually targeting each other’s energy infrastructure, they are raising the protection of that same infrastructure in diplomatic talks. Ukraine’s view of halting mutual attacks on energy facilities as the first stage in ending the war shows that a limited ceasefire may be possible. However, Moscow’s continued bombardment of Ukrainian cities and the energy grid makes it difficult for Kyiv to accept a unilateral decision to halt its attacks. Whether an arrangement on the protection of energy infrastructure can produce lasting results depends not only on an end to Ukraine’s attacks on Russian refineries but also on Russia halting its operations targeting Ukraine’s electricity, water and transport infrastructure. Otherwise, an energy ceasefire could turn into an asymmetric arrangement that preserves the military capacity of one party while limiting the instruments of pressure of the other.
Indeed, the events in Zaporizhzhia once again demonstrate that developments in energy markets cannot be assessed separately from the humanitarian dimension of the war. Although the US search to lower global fuel prices is an understandable priority from an economic standpoint, the fact that this goal reduces pressure on Russia may weaken the credibility of diplomatic initiatives aimed at ending the war. Particularly considering the importance of the revenues Moscow derives from energy exports for its war economy, the easing of sanctions cannot be regarded merely as a commercial decision. Such an arrangement, which could increase Russia’s export revenues, also carries the risk of reducing the Kremlin’s need to make concessions at the negotiating table.
At this point, the approach that has become increasingly evident in the Trump administration’s Ukraine policy suggests that, in order to end the war, priority is being given not so much to limiting Russia’s military capacity as to the parties’ compliance with the economic and diplomatic conditions set by Washington. However, in an environment where Ukraine’s security concerns are not adequately addressed and the strategic advantages Russia derives from continuing the war remain unchanged, it does not seem easy for a compromise reached in the field of energy to turn into a comprehensive peace. Moreover, Washington’s turn towards economic cooperation with Moscow while increasing its pressure on Kyiv may also deepen debates about the impartiality of the US mediating role.
In conclusion, the energy issue in the Russia-Ukraine War is moving beyond economic sanctions and military operations and turning into an arena in which international power relations are being reshaped. While Ukraine’s targeting of Russian energy infrastructure reflects its effort to limit Moscow’s war capacity, Trump’s opposition to these attacks shows the decisive influence of American domestic economic priorities on foreign policy. Putin, for his part, is able to use Russia’s position in energy markets to gain diplomatic advantage. The resulting picture therefore points not to a lasting compromise that will end the war, but rather to a new period in which the contradictions between energy security, political interests and military objectives are steadily deepening.
[i] Cuesta, Javier G., Luis de Vega, and Macarena Vidal Liy. “Trump anima a los ucranios a que ’busquen un nuevo líder’ tras un ataque de Kiev contra el sector petrolero ruso.” El País, https://elpais.com/internacional/2026-10-10/ucrania-golpea-una-gran-terminal-petrolera-rusa-tras-el-acuerdo-del-diesel-de-trump-y-putin.html, (Accessed: 11.10.2026).
