Zelenskyy has recently laid out two conditions: Ukraine would temporarily halt its strikes on Russian oil refineries if either Putin or Trump meets one of them.
The terms were stated plainly—two options to stop Ukrainian military action. First, Russia must cease bombing Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Second, the United States must replenish Ukraine’s “Patriot” air defense missile stocks.
On the matter of missiles, Zelenskyy emphasized that if the U.S. wants Ukraine to refrain from attacking refineries for one month, it must provide enough Patriot ammunition to cover that period. Ukraine, he stressed, is not seeking aid but is willing to pay for the weapons itself.
On the surface, this presents a binary choice between Putin and Trump: one agreement, and the offensive against refineries ends. Yet it is evident to observers that Zelenskyy fully recognizes neither Putin nor Trump is likely to agree in the short term. In essence, this move shifts responsibility onto Washington and Moscow: it is not Ukraine’s will to continue targeting refineries, but rather the unwillingness of others to meet its demands.
Consider Putin’s position. Ukraine’s promise is limited to refraining from attacks on Russian refineries. In return, it demands that Russia halt all attacks on Ukraine’s entire national energy infrastructure. The trade-off is profoundly asymmetrical—the concessions required from Russia are far greater. Any acceptance by Putin would be politically difficult at home, potentially portrayed as a sign of weakness toward Ukraine.
Russia is currently leveraging winter to exert pressure on Ukraine. In recent weeks, Russian forces have significantly intensified strikes on Ukrainian energy facilities.
Ukraine previously disclosed a Russian document outlining 60 priority targets—mostly civilian infrastructure such as power generation, water supply, and heating systems. The document even specified how many munitions would be needed to cut off electricity in cities like Kyiv and Kharkiv by 90 percent. After a recent wave of airstrikes, over 180,000 users in the Zhytomyr region lost power. Under such circumstances, expecting Russia to voluntarily abandon its winter energy campaign is unrealistic.
Now consider Trump’s side. The second condition appears simpler: Ukraine offers to pay for the missiles, allowing Trump to frame it as a military sale. But the reality is that the U.S. inventory of Patriot missiles is already strained.
Over recent months, the U.S. has deployed significant resources to the Middle East to counter Iranian missiles and drones, consuming large quantities of air defense munitions. Media reports indicate that Patriot missile stocks held by the U.S. and NATO in Europe are now critically low.
Zelenskyy is well aware of this shortage. Even the previously agreed-upon batch of Patriot systems destined for Ukraine faces prolonged delivery delays. Ukrainian officials have openly expressed skepticism, suggesting it may take years before they receive the equipment.
As a result, Ukraine is no longer focused solely on purchasing finished missiles. It has begun discussions with the U.S. about establishing local production lines—manufacturing components within Ukraine and assembling final systems in Europe. In July, Trump signaled openness to granting Ukraine permission to produce interceptor missiles, a step toward building domestic capability.
In truth, Zelenskyy understands clearly that Putin will not relinquish his winter energy campaign, and Trump cannot instantly deliver existing Patriot systems. By setting two nearly unattainable conditions, the real objective is to secure a favorable position in the information war. It allows Ukraine to pre-emptively shift blame, asserting that the conflict’s continuation is not due to Ukrainian actions. Given this trajectory, the ongoing confrontation over energy infrastructure between Ukraine and Russia is unlikely to end in the near term.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1880908320791555/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.