Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
Donald Trump said Ukraine and Russia had agreed to halt strikes on each other’s energy infrastructure, appearing to announce a deal that caught Ukrainian officials off guard in the absence of credible Russian guarantees.
The US president wrote on his Truth Social account on Monday that “Ukraine has agreed not to hit Russian Energy targets. Russia has agreed to do, likewise!” He blamed the surge in global diesel prices on the war between Kyiv and Moscow and “not Iran”, referencing the conflict he launched in February.
Previous US attempts to broker a ceasefire on energy infrastructure have failed. Against that backdrop, Trump’s announcement appeared to get ahead of any formal understanding between the warring sides.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded that support from Kyiv’s partners was still needed to guarantee Russia would hold up its side of any deal.
“If partners are ready to ensure Russia’s real desire not to strike our electricity, other energy facilities, critical infrastructure or food movement, then we are, of course, ready to ensure a corresponding absence of our strikes,” the Ukrainian president wrote on Telegram.
“Ukraine is not confident that Russia has the desire to comply with any agreement,” he added.
Russia did not immediately comment on Trump’s post.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for further information regarding the energy truce claimed by Trump.
Officials directly involved in the peace talks between the US, Ukraine and Russia told the FT that a ceasefire on energy facilities had been under discussion among the groups for some time — first during trilateral meetings and since February after those broke down in separate meetings and back-channel talks.
For months, Ukraine has pressed Russia to agree to a reciprocal pause in strikes on energy facilities as well as attacks against ports and other critical infrastructure, according to the officials. But Moscow had shown no interest, declining Kyiv’s overtures and instead intensifying its attacks, they said.
A person familiar with Russia’s position confirmed that Moscow and Kyiv had resumed talks on a possible energy ceasefire. But people familiar with Kremlin thinking say Russian President Vladimir Putin is reluctant to strike a deal before winter, when he believes attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure could increase pressure on Kyiv to make concessions.
“Every day, Ukrainian energy facilities, port infrastructure, logistics and even food and pharmaceutical warehouses become targets,” Zelenskyy said.
Two senior Ukrainian officials told the FT they believed Trump wanted to show an American public weary of high fuel prices that he was working on bringing them down.
Zelenskyy said that for any ceasefire “to be reliable, long-term, and have a real effect on people’s lives . . . the war needs to end”. A deal to halt strikes on each other’s critical infrastructure could be a “de-escalation step” and “the first step towards peace”, the Ukrainian president said.
Trump on Sunday hit out at Zelenskyy over Ukraine’s drone strikes against Russian energy facilities and appeared to blame Kyiv for the rise in global diesel prices.
“Mr Zelenskyy has to do one thing: he has to stop knocking out diesel fuel in Russia,” Trump told reporters in Ireland. “Let him go after targets but not diesel fuel, because he’s causing a shortage.” The Kremlin said on Monday it welcomed Trump’s comments.
Diesel has become as a political liability for the president as infrastructure damage caused by his war with Iran and the Russia-Ukraine conflict crimps supply, pushing prices to unprecedented levels in the US.
But an assessment by Ukraine’s KSE Institute, shared with the FT, found the US-Iran war had a far bigger impact on global diesel and gas oil supplies than Ukraine’s drone strikes. It estimated Gulf exports fell by 152mn barrels between March and August, compared with a 68mn-barrel drop in Russian exports over the same period.
“The cumulative loss from the Persian Gulf was therefore around 2.2 times larger,” it said.
Additional reporting by Amy Mackinnon in Washington
