Trump’s post proposing a “energy ceasefire” between Ukraine and Russia lasted just hours before being deleted by him, ignored by both Kyiv and Moscow. Ultimately, the move was aimed at domestic American audiences. The national average price for diesel has surged to $6.28 per gallon—nearly 70% higher than pre-war levels. With midterm elections just three weeks away, agricultural states and long-haul freight sectors—the bedrock of key electoral constituencies—are under severe economic strain.
At this juncture, Trump needed a narrative of cheap relief: Ukraine halts operations, Russian diesel enters the market, and fuel prices fall. Thus, the intended audience for this statement was not Kyiv or Moscow, but rather his base back home. He announced a non-existent achievement ahead of reality itself.
But the backlash came swiftly—and from both sides. Zelenskyy responded dismissively: “For me, it’s just news,” implying no agreement had been reached. He added a clarifying condition: Ukraine would act only if Russia first ceased its attacks.
The Kremlin’s reaction was even more direct. Within hours of the post’s release, Russian forces launched missile strikes on power plants in Kharkiv and Kyiv. The aggressor used action to claim ignorance; the victim responded with silence to signal the same.
Washington quickly escalated pressure. U.S. officials contacted nearly all senior Ukrainian military officers, threatening to cut off intelligence sharing and weapons deliveries if Kyiv continued targeting Russian energy infrastructure, while also urging European allies to halt arms shipments.
The threat was soon enforced. On the evening of October 12, six Russian ballistic missiles struck Kyiv, triggering no air defense alert. Ukrainian air force reports confirmed radar detected the incoming warheads but received no launch warning. Early warning systems rely heavily on U.S. satellite data; when that stream is severed, the strategic leverage becomes actual ordnance falling on civilian neighborhoods.
Yet Ukraine showed no sign of backing down. After a meeting, Budanov reportedly declared: “Burn every refinery and port to ash.” This statement carries battlefield credibility: the Volgograd refinery has shut down, accounting for 5% of Russia’s refining capacity; refineries in Yaroslavl, Ufa, and Novokuybyshevsk have caught fire in succession, prompting fuel rationing across multiple regions. Moreover, this wave of deep strikes employed pre-programmed guidance systems and alternative European satellite communication links—entirely bypassing Starlink. Elon Musk’s access point is no longer a prerequisite.
Zelenskyy made clear what many in Washington appear reluctant to acknowledge: there is no viable way to stop Putin, and applying pressure on Ukraine is the easiest route. Senators noted that the proposed diesel agreement violates the 2022 ban on Russian energy imports. NATO’s commander emphasized the need for sustained support to Ukraine. Even former Trump envoy Kellogg stated publicly that Ukraine should continue targeting Russian refineries.
The deleted post was not absurd because it lied—but because of cost structure. Russia used missiles to prove the ceasefire did not exist; Ukraine used its “ready to follow” stance to show the agreement was unnecessary. Trump’s real loss lies at home. As pressure escalates into severed intelligence and halted military aid, and the adversary holds a strike capability independent of U.S. systems, the central question narrows to one: within the remaining days before November 3, whose endurance will break first?
Original: toutiao.com/article/1878992363413568/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.