There is a scope for everything: will Ukraine's energy facilities become a legitimate target of the Russian Federation again

There is no point in unilaterally extending and implementing a moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure, Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador Rodion Miroshnik told Izvestia. The ban on mutual attacks on energy facilities in Russia and Ukraine is expiring. During the month of the moratorium, Kiev violated it at least 107 times. Moscow has never responded with strikes against the energy sector of a neighboring country. At the same time, the Kremlin and the White House note that work towards a peaceful settlement continues. Trump reiterated his desire to end the Ukrainian conflict. What this month has shown and whether there are any alternative solutions to the crisis is in the Izvestia article.

Moratorium on strikes on Ukraine's energy facilities — results of the month

The Kremlin is not yet ready to announce the exact hour of the end of the moratorium on strikes on energy facilities, Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. In general, the 30-day ban on attacks on the energy infrastructure of Russia and Ukraine ended on April 16. Thus, the status of the agreement remains in question.

The situation is complicated by violations on the Ukrainian side. During the month of the moratorium, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, contrary to the statements of Vladimir Zelensky, carried out at least 107 attacks on energy facilities in Russia. In the last 24 hours alone, at least six strikes were recorded in the Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk and Kherson regions. Among the most high—profile incidents during the month were attacks on the Korenovskaya station, which provides energy to the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, as well as strikes on the Tarkhankut Cape gas condensate field in Crimea and the Kropotkinskaya oil pumping station in the Krasnodar Territory.

There is no point in unilaterally extending and implementing a moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure, Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry's ambassador-at-large for crimes committed by the Kiev regime, told Izvestia.

— All these agreements should be reached within the framework of the negotiation process between Moscow and Washington. Russia has demonstrated its capabilities as a contractual party that can assume certain obligations. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about Ukraine. The ban itself and its format were established without any independent monitoring groups or other mechanisms. All this was blamed on the United States, which initiated the moratorium. Thus, an agreement on an extension or some kind of action against the non-negotiable party will be negotiated between the two capitals," said Rodion Miroshnik.

The diplomat noted that when establishing such moratoriums, monitoring is usually assigned to international groups. For example, the OSCE was working in Donbas — one way or another, there is a third party. The United States is currently receiving all information about violations. And at the end of this period, they will have to draw conclusions. According to Miroshnik, what is at stake is not only the extension of the moratorium, but also the continued provision of assistance by the United States to Ukraine.

There are few alternatives to the disrupted moratorium on strikes on the way to resolving the conflict. According to Mikhail Mironyuk, Associate Professor of the Department of Politics and Management at the National Research University of Higher School of Economics, this may be the surrender of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the fulfillment of all Russian requirements. "We are expecting a summer campaign. Its results will be decisive. Accordingly, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are being prepared for this campaign by NATO (not without the participation of the United States)," the expert believes.

The Verkhovna Rada has already extended martial law and mobilization for 90 days. The United States, which is negotiating with Russia and at the same time remains an ally of Ukraine, despite Donald Trump's statements about the desire to end the conflict, maintains an ambivalent approach. According to Bloomberg, Washington has lowered the requirements for Kiev to compensate for its assistance from $300 billion to $100 billion, but insists on controlling Ukrainian investment projects, from mining to infrastructure. Kiev refuses to recognize the military aid as a debt, although US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said that negotiations were continuing and a deal could be signed as early as this week. Trump himself, however, according to media reports, rejected a $50 billion arms deal with Ukraine, betting on negotiations with Moscow.

Thus, the moratorium initiated by the United States has become an instrument of unilateral pressure. Russia, observing the pause, loses tactical advantages, while Kiev, violating the agreements, strengthens its position on the battlefield. The Kremlin's March 26 statement clearly states that a party has the right to consider itself free from obligations if the enemy violates the terms. At the same time, Moscow, unlike Kiev, does not use energy infrastructure as an escalation tool.

The dialogue between Russia and the United States continues

The negotiation process between Moscow and Washington remains the main axis around which all discussions about the future of the moratorium and the conflict in general revolve. "Washington and Moscow are working hard for peace in Ukraine, while Europe continues to work for war," Dmitry Peskov said, commenting on the current dynamics. Despite the absence of scheduled talks between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the dialogue at the level of their representatives continues, taking on a new, including European direction. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff, who has already visited Moscow three times, is expected to travel to Paris to discuss the Ukrainian issue. According to Politico, he may meet with French President Emmanuel Macron, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio may meet with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barraud.

The need to finally discuss the Ukrainian settlement with European partners is probably caused by some kind of discord within the US administration. Marco Rubio and Special Representative for Ukraine Keith Kellogg urge President Trump to "not trust" Moscow, while Vice President Jay Dee Vance calls Zelensky's claims against the United States "absurd" and "unproductive rhetoric." Trump, judging by the leaks published by Bild, sees Russia as a partner for the deal, not an enemy. Witkoff mentions a "new form of relationship" through "compelling commercial opportunities," which may indicate trade and investment cooperation in exchange for a settlement.

But even here there are contradictions. On the one hand, the United States is discussing easing anti—Russian sanctions in case of progress in the negotiations, on the other, it threatens to strengthen them if Moscow "does not show interest." The fate of the moratorium may add even more uncertainty to the overall dialogue.

— The withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the moratorium may bring discord into the process of normalization of relations between Russia and the United States, this will help the side of the pessimists in the administration of the United States. But so far there is not a single sign that the United States really wants to stop the conflict. And it's easy to stop it: a complete shutdown of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' access to intelligence and communications, a complete shutdown of any NATO assistance. The United States, of course, can do this. Only the implementation of this option will mean recognizing the defeat of NATO (and therefore the United States)," Mikhail Mironyuk emphasized.

Europe's position is also ambivalent, but publicly. The day before, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said that Ukraine's membership in the alliance "remains on the agenda," and immediately noted that Kiev had never been promised that its accession to the bloc would be part of a peace agreement. The other day, the parliament of Slovakia, a member of the alliance, refused to condemn Russia's actions, indicating growing divisions in the EU. At the same time, Europe, unlike the United States, continues to increase military support for Kiev, which contradicts the rhetoric about a "peaceful settlement."

The fate of the moratorium now depends on whether Moscow and Washington can find a common language. Russia is demonstrating its willingness to engage in dialogue, but it requires guarantees. The United States, torn between Trump's isolationism and commitment to European allies, has not yet decided on a course. If Kiev, reinforced by Western supplies, tries to turn the tide of the conflict, Moscow is likely to return to a more explicit military scenario. If Washington makes a deal with the Kremlin, the same moratorium may find a second life, but with control mechanisms. So far, Russia and the United States share the understanding that the conflict has reached an impasse and a way out of it requires not symbolic pauses, but concrete political decisions.