An energy truce between Russia and Ukraine is possible. U.S. representatives have repeatedly emphasized that the Russians would refrain from striking targets in Ukraine, while Ukrainians would do the same in Russia.
Energy security experts warns of Putin’s traps. They are actively discussing the issue, but there are no visible shifts, as even if a truce is established, there are no guarantees that Putin will not order its violation or blame Ukraine for breaking it. Oleksandr Maryshchak investigates.
The mediator plays into the aggressor’s hands
According to Mykhailo Honchar, an energy security expert, any truce—whether energy-related, infrastructural, or maritime—cannot be considered separately or compartmentalized, as in agreeing that missiles won’t fall in one area while they will in another.
“We are being pushed toward such an approach, as if saying, ‘Let’s agree on this part now, and we’ll deal with the rest later.’ In my view, this kind of strategy benefits our enemy. Especially considering that the mediator—in this case, the U.S.—is not entirely impartial. Essentially, it is helping the other side gain a more advantageous position, as it accepts and shares its rhetoric,” Honchar told TSN.ua.
How Putin maneuvers
The expert emphasizes that the issue of an energy truce between Ukraine and Russia raises many questions. First and foremost, there are no official agreements yet—only statements of intent that are not backed by concrete actions. Currently, both the Ukrainian and Russian sides are merely offering their own interpretations of the matter.
“There has been no clear official information from the Ukrainian side. This, in turn, makes a comprehensive assessment of the situation difficult. Russia, however, operates differently—it immediately included everything vulnerable to itself on its list and presented it to the Americans. This list includes Russian oil refineries. But, to be frank, refineries are part of industrial infrastructure, not energy infrastructure. Only fuel storage bases fall under energy infrastructure, as fuel is considered an energy resource. However, anything related to fuel production itself is part of industrial infrastructure, not the energy sector,” explains Mykhailo Honchar.
A truce without guarantees
Nevertheless, the Russians have included oil refineries in their list of inviolable targets, as this is one of their most vulnerable points, which has recently been under significant pressure from our rockets and drones.
“If we agree to this approach, we essentially close off the opportunity to apply pressure on this sensitive spot for Russia. Putin, with the help of the U.S., is trying to fully secure himself on all fronts. Recently, the Russians launched a missile strike on our gas extraction infrastructure. And it’s very doubtful that such strikes won’t be repeated. Now they supposedly promise not to strike gas compressor stations, pipelines, and other infrastructure. But what about gas extraction sites? It’s still unclear whether this will be reflected in the energy truce documents or not. And there are many similar questions. To objectively assess everything, we need to see the actual document, and it should be publicly available,” Mykhailo Honchar says.
“Loopholes” the enemy will exploit
The expert adds that it is difficult to say what exactly is in the document without having it in hand. Currently, both the Russians and the Americans present the situation as if the parties have supposedly already settled everything, but in reality, this is not the case.
“We don’t even know who the experts were that were involved in preparing our wishes and proposals. The term ‘energy experts’ is very general and doesn’t reflect the full range of specialists involved in this matter. It is unclear whether representatives from relevant energy companies were included. Because when we talk about the entire energy complex, there are no small details. If we miss something, the enemy will certainly exploit it and target it with missiles, claiming that this object is not on the list,” explains the energy security expert.
Mykhailo Honchar adds that in the energy truce document, everything is crucial, and it is absolutely wrong to generalize under the term “energy infrastructure.” It should be clearly outlined what is included and what the parties have agreed upon, not just each side sticking to its own definition.
“Of course, the Russians, in their characteristic manner, will use everything to accuse us of violations and failure to meet the terms of the truce. If we don’t see clear definitions laid out in the agreements themselves, then each side will interpret the matter however they want. Our government must provide clear answers. Because while it remains silent, the narratives that Russia or our mediator will launch will dominate the media space,” Mykhailo Honchar says.
Provocations from Russia
By the way, the expert is certain that the Russians will stage provocations. They are already claiming that, allegedly, on March 26, Ukrainians attacked Crimea with drones, and the target of the attack was the equipment of the Hlibivske gas storage facility.
According to Mykhailo Honchar, these accusations from Russia are unfounded. Crimea is Ukrainian territory, so even if we imagine that we did carry out this strike, it would not be on Russian territory.
“This is actually a good test for the Americans. Because they have an opinion, when discussing territorial issues, that Crimea should be handed over to Russia. Of course, this is unacceptable both from our perspective and from the point of view of international law, because Crimea is Ukraine. Therefore, despite the agreements discussed in Saudi Arabia, where the parties agreed to refrain from airstrikes against each other, we retain the full right, regardless of the agreements reached, to strike anything we deem necessary there,” Mykhailo Honchar says.
Earlier, TSN.ua reported that Zelenskyy named the proposed truce date.
Tags: ceasefire crimea peace plan peace talks Russia russia ukraine war Ukraine war
