Quiet agreements matter in high diplomacy

Financial Times reports that the United States and Ukraine discussed the possibility of offering Russia a limited truce in the energy sector. According to the outlet, the proposal would involve Moscow halting strikes on energy infrastructure, while Kyiv would stop attacks on oil refineries and tankers that fuel the enemy's war machine.

What exactly was discussed

According to FT, the talks were at the discussion stage — not final. The idea is simple from a humanitarian point of view: reduce destruction, restore electricity and heat to civilians. But the simplicity of the humanitarian argument runs up against the complex logic of war.

"Talks with Russia on this proposal are not at a final stage."

— a Financial Times interlocutor

Why the Kremlin is unlikely to agree

From a political perspective, for Vladimir Putin strikes on energy infrastructure are not only a military tool but also a means of applying pressure to Ukrainian society and the economy. That is why FT's interlocutors and analysts believe Moscow is unlikely to accept such a compromise without guaranteed benefits.

Why Kyiv also has doubts

There were also reservations within Ukrainian government circles. One reason is the effectiveness of Ukraine's long-range drone program and strikes on Russian oil and gas facilities and tankers in the Black and Mediterranean Seas, which reduce fuel support for the Russian army.

"Kyiv also has doubts about such a truce because its long-range drone program is successfully striking Russian oil and gas facilities."

— an unnamed Ukrainian senior official, Financial Times

History and lessons: pauses that come at a high cost

At the end of March 2025 Ukraine and Russia, mediated by the United States, already agreed to cease strikes on energy infrastructure and in the Black Sea. However, Moscow repeatedly violated that truce. British intelligence later warned that during such pauses the enemy could accumulate missiles and other munitions.

Lesson from experience: any temporary truce requires strict verification mechanisms, transparent guarantees and penalties for violations, otherwise it can give the enemy a strategic advantage.

Diplomatic context: Davos and talks with the United States

President Volodymyr Zelensky announced tripartite talks between Ukraine, Russia and the United States in the UAE on January 23–24. Before that he held bilateral talks with US President Donald Trump, which, according to official reports, both sides judged positively. At the same time, Kyiv emphasizes the need for additional air defense systems — which Zelensky had requested.

Benefits and risks for Ukraine

Benefits: reduced destruction of the energy system, less human suffering and the possibility of repairing critical infrastructure. Risks: the enemy may use the pause to restore strike capabilities or to stockpile munitions.

Words worth hearing

"I urge Ukrainians to pay close attention to air raid alerts."

— Andriy Kovalenko, head of the Center for Countering Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council

What's next?

No decision has been made. Talks, according to FT, are ongoing and remain far from a final format. The question is: can the partners provide such guarantees and control mechanisms so that the humanitarian effect does not turn into a strategic advantage for the enemy?

The key test for the West and Kyiv is to turn diplomatic signals into real instruments of control and accountability. If that does not happen, temporary relief may turn into new threats.