“The question is Russia’s readiness”: Ukrainian officials comment on Trump’s statement on an energy ceasefire

Ukrainian officials have commented on a statement by US President Donald Trump that Kyiv and Moscow have allegedly agreed not to strike each other’s energy facilities. According to an informed RBC-Ukraine source in the government, Ukraine has been ready for de-escalation from the very beginning of the American president’s attempts to achieve such an outcome. The key question, the source emphasized, lies not in Kyiv’s position but in the readiness of the Russian side.

Negotiations with Witkoff and Kushner: what was discussed

Answering the question of whether Ukraine is now awaiting a reaction from Russia or is negotiating the details, the publication’s source recalled that during the visit of US presidential special envoys Stephen Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Kyiv, various options for de-escalating the conflict were discussed. “Trump is apparently talking to the Russians about something. When Witkoff and Kushner were here, they discussed various de-escalation options,” the source noted. Thus, the Ukrainian side emphasizes that work on mechanisms to reduce tension was being carried out at the level of working contacts even before the American leader’s public statements.

“Trump knows it is hard to refuse him”

The Ukrainian source also suggested that Trump’s statement about an allegedly reached agreement between both sides may be an attempt to put both Kyiv and Moscow in a fait accompli situation. “Since Trump knows it is hard to refuse him. But Ukraine has been in favor of de-escalation from the very beginning of Trump’s attempts to achieve it. The question is Russia’s readiness,” the RBC-Ukraine source emphasized. This wording effectively indicates that, in the view of the Ukrainian side, Moscow’s unilateral agreement to an energy ceasefire had not been confirmed at the time of Trump’s statement.

Zelensky’s position: maritime and energy ceasefire

Earlier the same day, President Volodymyr Zelensky said he hopes to meet with Donald Trump in the US next week. The head of the Ukrainian state emphasized that Ukraine is open to a maritime and energy ceasefire and plans to discuss these issues with his American counterpart during a possible meeting. Thus, Kyiv’s official position amounts to readiness for specific forms of de-escalation, with the caveat that they must be coordinated through bilateral negotiations rather than declared unilaterally.

Contradictory data

There are significant discrepancies between the statements of the parties and the assessments of experts. On the one hand, Donald Trump publicly stated that Ukraine and Russia have already agreed not to strike energy facilities, implying the existence of a bilateral consensus. On the other hand, a Ukrainian source in the government directly points out that “the question is Russia’s readiness,” without confirming the fact of Moscow’s agreement. In addition, political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko, commenting on Trump’s statement, pointed to two possible reasons why the American president might have declared an allegedly reached agreement between both sides without having confirmed guarantees to that effect. Thus, until an official comment is received from the Russian side and the planned meeting between Zelensky and Trump takes place, the status of the “energy ceasefire” remains a matter of interpretation rather than a documented agreement.

Context and prospects

Trump’s statement on the parties’ agreement to an energy ceasefire came against the backdrop of ongoing negotiations on resolving the conflict. The visit of Witkoff and Kushner to Kyiv became one of the key episodes of diplomatic activity in recent weeks. For Ukraine, accepting an energy and maritime ceasefire means reducing risks to critical infrastructure and logistics routes; however, as Kyiv emphasizes, any agreements must be documented and guaranteed. According to Zelensky, next week could be a turning point: the planned meeting with Trump in the US should provide an answer to the question of whether the American president’s public statement will turn into a concrete de-escalation mechanism or remain a rhetorical step.