Ukraine confirms US is now protecting Putin’s oil assets
After more than a year of speculation and unofficial commentary, two of Ukraine’s top officials have now publicly confirmed what many analysts long suspected: the United States has asked Ukraine not to strike Russian oil and energy infrastructure.
The first acknowledgment came from President Volodymyr Zelensky following a large-scale Russian missile, drone, and ballistic attack on Ukraine’s energy facilities. Speaking after the attack on Kremenchuk, Zelensky said,
“It happened right after Putin’s conversation with Trump. After the Americans asked us not to strike Russian energy facilities.”
He described the timing of the Russian assault as “a spit in the face” to global efforts aimed at ending the war.
The statement marked the first direct confirmation from Ukraine’s head of state that the country’s Western allies, particularly the United States, have placed restrictions on targeting Russia’s energy sector—despite the fact that Russia has made Ukrainian energy infrastructure a central focus of its wartime campaign.
Hours later, Ukraine’s First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko reinforced the message in a statement of her own.
“Some allies have asked us not to strike Russian energy infrastructure—even as Russia wages all-out war on ours: targeting power plants, oil and gas infrastructure, hydroelectric dams—every form of energy we rely upon.”
The comments provide the clearest public evidence to date that Kyiv has been operating under external pressure to avoid actions that could destabilize global energy markets, even as its own grid, heating infrastructure, and fuel reserves face repeated attacks.
According to Ukrainian officials and several open-source intelligence assessments, Kyiv paused strikes on Russian refineries for roughly 45 days in the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, resuming them on election night. The timing, while not officially acknowledged, suggests a political calculus: to avoid complicating the U.S. domestic environment while continuing a campaign that Ukraine sees as vital to weakening Russia’s war effort.
Western concern over the potential economic fallout of sustained attacks on Russian oil facilities—particularly regarding global fuel prices—has long shaped the informal boundaries of the conflict. But the public confirmation of these limits, especially in the face of continued Russian strikes on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, raises difficult questions about proportionality, deterrence, and the sustainability of long-term support.
President Zelensky argued that the war “would have ended long ago” had the international community responded with firmer action, including stronger sanctions and enforcement of a meaningful oil price cap.
Svyrydenko echoed that view, describing the Russian oil sector as the financial backbone of both the current invasion and future military aggression.
While U.S. officials have not commented on the latest remarks, the growing divergence between Ukraine’s strategic imperatives and Western caution highlights a tension at the heart of the alliance: how to support Ukraine’s self-defense while managing the global consequences of escalation.
For Ukraine, the case appears increasingly clear. To reduce Russia’s ability to wage war, it must target the resources that finance it. And until that is allowed without constraint, officials suggest, Moscow will remain confident it can act without meaningful economic consequence.
