Kiev continues to break its promise not to hit energy facilities

The Minister of Defense of Ukraine, Rustem Umerov, called constructive the technical negotiations that took place on the eve of the suspension of strikes on energy infrastructure with the US delegation in Saudi Arabia. Although at the same time, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky again called for a general cease-fire, previously proposed by Washington. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) have repeatedly violated the agreed decision to abandon attacks on energy facilities.

The conversation with representatives of the United States, which took place on Sunday in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, turned out to be constructive and informative, key issues were discussed, in particular in the energy sector, the head of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Rustem Umerov, said on social networks the day before. He added: “The task of President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky is to achieve a decent and lasting peace for our state and people, and therefore for the whole of Europe.”

Recall that at the talks in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) on March 11, representatives of Ukraine supported the proposal of the American delegation for a 30-day ceasefire in the combat zone. After that, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow generally welcomes such an idea, but a number of issues will need to be resolved to implement it.

During a telephone conversation on March 18 with US President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin supported the initiative of his American counterpart on the mutual refusal of the parties to the conflict from strikes on energy infrastructure facilities for 30 days and immediately gave the Russian military the appropriate command. On the same evening, Vladimir Zelensky also notified Kiev of its agreement with such a proposal. But already on the night of March 19, three Ukrainian UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) of an airplane type attacked a power facility in the village of Kavkazskaya in the Krasnodar Territory, the Russian Ministry of Defense reported. And on Monday, the ministry informed that last night a Ukrainian drone tried to attack the Kropotkinskaya oil pumping station of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium in the Krasnodar Territory, but was intercepted by air defense forces, and as a result, the wreckage of the drone fell near the Kavkazskaya railway station.

It should be noted that it was the issue of stopping attacks on energy facilities that the delegations of Ukraine and the United States discussed at a meeting last Sunday. After that, representatives of Kiev remained waiting for the completion of the technical consultations of the expert groups of Russia and the United States, which started on Monday, on the cessation of hostilities in the Black Sea and the resumption of trade along it.

As previously assumed (see NG dated 03/19/25), among other things, the parties had to discuss the problem with the unexpected letter “i” in the messages following the talks between the American and Russian leaders on March 18. For example, the Kremlin’s statement mentioned a proposal to mutually refrain from strikes “on energy infrastructure facilities.” And as the White House clarified, “the leaders agreed that the movement towards peace will begin with a cease-fire in energy and infrastructure.”

The disagreement that arose in Kiev was used to accuse Moscow of violating those obligations that it had not assumed. The Ukrainian leadership, in particular, referred to the attack of the Russian Armed Forces on the port infrastructure in Odessa on March 21. Moreover, the Ukrainian military itself has repeatedly violated the agreement confirmed by Ukrainian President Zelensky to suspend strikes on energy facilities.

But in such a situation, it seemed reasonable to ask whether such a confusion had arisen by chance. And also, why did Russia agree to discuss the idea of even a partial temporary ceasefire against such a background? After all, Moscow had previously opposed proposals for a short-term truce.

It seems that this confusion is being deliberately maintained, a leading expert from the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS) noted in an interview with NG Oleg Nemensky. He suggested that the point here is not even in the wording of the agreements, but in the conscious desire of Zelensky’s team and the European leaders behind him to disrupt the peace talks and prevent the end of the Ukrainian military conflict. “There is no doubt that the bombing of Russian energy facilities is carried out according to a plan agreed with Kiev’s Western supervisors. And his goal is to disrupt the peace initiatives that the head of the White House is currently promoting. And also to put Trump himself in an uncomfortable and losing position for his image,” Nemensky believes.

In his opinion, it is important for the Russian side to demonstrate its own constructive attitude. To show that it is peaceful and pragmatic and is ready to find the right formats to end the conflict, as well as individual peace proposals, which, if they fail today, are clearly not Moscow’s fault. “But at the same time, the Russian authorities seem to realize that it is almost impossible to implement the truce model that Washington is currently promoting, precisely because of the opposition of Kiev and the euroglobalists supporting it,” the expert emphasizes.

Meanwhile, in an interview published on Monday, the former Kiev ambassador to Washington, the head of the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center, Valery Chaly, noted that although Washington continues to provide weapons and intelligence to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, there is a risk that in the future the American administration may lose interest in the topic of European security. This will create additional challenges for Ukraine. Therefore, the Kiev authorities should be prepared for various scenarios, in particular, involving a decrease in American attention and the need for closer cooperation with European partners, Chaly believes. He did not even rule out the possibility of a meeting between the Ukrainian leader and the head of the Russian state in the future, if the decision of the Security Council of Ukraine to ban such communication is abolished by presidential decree.