Filenews 26 November 2025
By Ken Silverstein
While Washington is peddling a 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, the real war is being waged on pipelines, refineries and power grids. From the sabotage of Nord Stream 2 to attacks on Russian fuel depots and Ukrainian substations, both sides are targeting energy infrastructure. Russia has suffered a significant blow to refining and storage capacity, while Ukraine's grid and electricity generation remain vulnerable. The energy battlefield is reshaping the balance of power — and any diplomatic proposal that ignores it underestimates reality.
Trump's peace plan rewards Russian aggression, undermines NATO, and offers Moscow economic and territorial benefits without accountability. However, the energy reality suggests that Russia is not as sovereign as the plan wants it to be. As Anne Applebaum writes in The Atlantic: "The plan's key points reflect Russia's long-standing demands. It is not a peace plan. It is a proposal that weakens Ukraine and separates the US from Europe, preparing the ground for a bigger war in the future."
According to Applebaum, the plan envisages that Russia will retain control of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk and the occupied territories of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Ukraine will limit its armed forces to 600.000 soldiers, hold new elections within 100 days, "renounce" its membership in NATO and accept restrictions on the deployment of foreign troops. Financial aid and support for its reconstruction will be largely provided under US supervision, with Moscow benefiting from the lifting of sanctions against it and its reintegration into global markets.
Although the plan emphasizes Ukraine's sovereignty and security guarantees, in practice neither issue seems to be resolved in a credible way. The Economist notes: "Under Mr. Trump's leadership, it is not certain that the U.S. will fight Russia, not even within the framework of its NATO obligations. The plan for Ukraine depends entirely on Trump's whims." In short, Trump's proposal essentially puts Moscow's desire on paper.
However, the situation in the energy sector is more complicated. Russia has lost significant refining capacity, oil depots and key storage hubs due to drone and missile attacks by Ukraine. Most damage to the refineries occurred from late 2024 to mid-2025, with Ukraine attempting to disrupt Russia's fuel supply chain. The operation of several refineries and pipelines near Moscow and western Russia has been affected, a development that has limited fuel supplies.
And Ukraine has suffered heavy losses: power plants, substations and transmission networks have been repeatedly affected, leaving millions of people without electricity. However, quick grid repairs, donor-funded transformers, and rapid equipment replacement are now restoring the power supply in a matter of days.
The battlefield of energy — who loses?
According to energy industry reports, the production capacity of Russian refineries has been reduced by hundreds of thousands of barrels per day due to Ukrainian attacks. The situation with power outages in Ukraine is improving thanks to faster damage repair, the development of microgrids and decentralized storage.
Europe has drastically reduced its dependence on Russian energy — from about 40% of gas imports before the invasion to 10% today. In short, Russia's energy advantage is being undermined, even though it has occupied Ukrainian territory.
In particular, in 2024 Ukrainian drone and missile attacks disrupted Russia's refining capacity. According to Hydrocarbon Processing, the Ukrainians neutralized about 17% of Russia's oil refining capacity — about 1,2 million. barrels per day. KyivPost reports that Ukrainian drones neutralized 20% of Russian refining capacity in August and October, although Russia repaired much of the damage by restarting idle refining plants.
Reducing refining capacity could impose significant restrictions on Russia in terms of exporting fuel and generating wartime revenue. Analysts warn that ongoing infrastructure damage may soon reach a tipping point, as sustained attacks extend repair times, increase maintenance costs and hinder access to spare parts. The Kyiv Independent newspaper claims that long-range attacks have cost Russia 4,11% of its GDP in 2025, or 74,1 billion. Although this estimate is based on modelling assumptions and may fluctuate as repairs accelerate.
The energy battlefield is reshaping negotiations. The peace plan overestimates Russia's sovereignty and Ukraine's weakness. Indeed, Ukraine has caused strategic damage to Moscow. A truce that rewards territorial gains while ignoring ongoing energy losses undermines negotiations. Practically, Russia's economy and energy infrastructure are not intact, which reduces its influence.
Applebaum points out that there is a risk of misinterpreting the incentives: "Russian and American investors benefit, at the expense of the rest." Outside of geopolitics, all of this shows how economic deals—energy deals, infrastructure investments, and business opportunities—could benefit some parties with disproportionate profits, leaving Europe and Ukraine to bear the costs of reconstruction. "Putin has said that several companies are able to resume business relations between Russia and the US."
Capitulation is a bad peace plan
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged that concessions will be made. Speaking on January 12 to CBS News about Trump's proposal, he said: "Both sides will have to make concessions. There can be no peace agreement if they both do not make concessions – that is a fact. Otherwise it will be a surrender."
In this context, supporters of the plan emphasize that war fatigue, depletion of resources and political pressures make a negotiated compromise, however imperfect, preferable to continuing the war. They point out that Kiev has contributed to the drafting of the plan and that a temporary ceasefire could allow Europe and the US to stabilize energy supplies and reallocate resources.
"I am not in favour of the first plan, but I am in favour of striving for peace," said Iuliia Mendel, President Zelensky's former spokesperson. "Who thinks about the people in Ukraine who die every day? I think the most important thing is to stop the mass killings."
Realism, of course, is vital — especially for the lives of Ukrainians and Russians, as hundreds of thousands of soldiers have sacrificed their lives in this war. Russia's bargaining power is limited.
The Economist magazine warns: "If (Trump) manages to push through his plan for Ukraine, NATO countries will be weakened and Russia will become stronger."
However, in the energy sector, Russia is neither immune nor ready to withstand an indefinite pressure. Ukraine's attacks, combined with the diversification of the sources from which Europe obtains energy, signal that the game is not completely controlled by the Kremlin. Any agreement that ignores these realities risks rewarding Moscow and rewarding aggression.
The stakes are not limited to Ukraine. NATO's cohesion, European energy security and global markets are affected by the interplay of war, diplomacy and energy. Misjudging Russia's power and economic benefits could lead to strategic miscalculations, setting the stage for future conflicts. Energy is not a regional issue.
By rewarding the occupier, undermining collective defense, and ignoring the energy battlefield, we succumb to Russia's demands and consolidate its military gains. In fact, the West still has the means to shape the outcome. Any agreement that does not embody this reality is not peace, but a truce. And the next conflict could be even more costly.
