In a recent Axios interview, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a bold assertion: that U.S. President Donald Trump has given the green light for Ukraine to retaliate against Russian attacks on its energy sector by targeting Russia’s own energy infrastructure.
According to Zelensky, “If they attack our energy, President Trump supports that we can answer on energy.” He even claimed Trump approved strikes on Russian military factories, though he noted these might be challenging due to heavy defenses. This comes on the heels of a September 23, 2025, meeting between the two leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York, where Zelensky reportedly pushed for more U.S. weapons to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin into negotiations.
Zelensky’s comments align with ongoing Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian facilities, such as the Salavat petrochemical complex and refineries in Bryansk and Samara regions, which have exacerbated fuel shortages in Russia, including in annexed Crimea.
Trump, for his part, followed the meeting with a Truth Social post highlighting Russia’s economic woes, calling them “BIG economic trouble” and implying this weakness bolsters Ukraine’s position.
On the surface, it sounds like a diplomatic win for Kyiv amid escalating energy warfare. But let’s pump the brakes—this smells like hogwash, and here’s why.
Trump’s Track Record: A History of Opposition to Deep Strikes
Dig a little deeper, and Zelensky’s narrative crumbles under the weight of Trump’s own words. Just months ago, in December 2024, as president-elect, Trump lambasted the Biden administration’s decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles like ATACMS for strikes deep into Russian territory. In a Time magazine interview, he called it a “stupid” move that risked unnecessary escalation.
He was “vehemently” opposed, insisting such actions could drag the U.S. further into the conflict without clear benefits.
Reuters reported Trump criticizing Ukraine’s use of these weapons, emphasizing his desire to avoid broadening the war.
Even allies like JD Vance echoed this caution, warning against provoking Russia unnecessarily.
Fast-forward to Trump’s presidency in 2025, and while there’s been some rhetorical softening—such as suggestions that Ukraine should “play offensive” to counter Russian resistance—the policy hasn’t budged.
In August 2025, the Pentagon quietly blocked approvals for long-range strikes, sticking to the White House’s line of enticing Moscow toward peace talks rather than fueling firepower.
Trump himself has publicly stated that Ukraine “cannot win without striking Russian territory,” but his administration clarified no policy shift, maintaining restrictions on U.S. weapons for deep incursions.
If Trump had truly “signed off” on energy strikes, we’d see concrete action, not just vague post-meeting vibes. Zelensky’s claim feels like an overreach, painting a private chat as blanket approval to rally support and pressure the U.S.
The Political Fallout: Risks of Misleading the Press
If Zelensky is indeed stretching the truth—or outright misleading—to drum up reactions, the political implications could be seismic, especially in the energy sector where stability hangs by a thread. First, it erodes trust with the Trump administration at a critical juncture. Trump has already shown a “dramatic” change in tune toward Ukraine after Zelensky’s charm offensive, disparaging Russia’s economy and hinting at stronger support.
But exaggerating approvals risks alienating a president known for thin skin on perceived slights. Fact-checks have repeatedly called out misrepresentations in Trump-Zelensky interactions, like Trump’s claims about the war’s origins, which Zelensky labeled as Russian disinformation.
A backlash could mean delayed or reduced U.S. aid, including weapons vital for Ukraine’s energy defense. On the global stage, this could baffle allies and embolden adversaries. Russian politicians have scorned Trump’s apparent about-face, suggesting Zelensky swayed him unduly.
If exposed as hogwash, it might portray Zelensky as desperate, undermining his credibility in negotiations and with European partners who are already shouldering much of the burden. Zelensky has warned Trump against being misled by Putin, but this tactic flips the script—potentially to provoke media buzz and public pressure on Washington.
Experts note such moves could backfire, as seen in past fracases where Zelensky’s direct rebukes of Trump (e.g., on Russian strikes being “murder,” not mistakes) strained relations.
From an energy perspective, misleading claims heighten market volatility. Russia’s refining capacity is already strained, with shortages rippling through global oil prices. If Zelensky’s words incite unauthorized escalations, we could see retaliatory hits on Ukrainian infrastructure, spiking energy costs worldwide. Ukrainian political analysts like Volodymyr Fesenko argue offensive weapons could pressure Putin more than sanctions, but without real U.S. buy-in, it’s just bluster.
Zelensky has proven to be an installed puppet for the intelligence agencies, and not a leader for his country. We need President Trump not to listen to the war mongers in Congress, or in his adminstration. There is more than enough evidence that peace will only come from President Putin being at the table with business deals lined up, and not threatening with sanctions. Sanctions have not hurt Russia, but in fact have hurt the US Dollar as it has been weaponized and faces some tough times due to the overuse of sanctions.
In the end, Zelensky’s assertion seems more like wishful thinking than fact. Trump may be warming to Ukraine, but approving strikes on Russian energy? Hogwash. This kind of gamesmanship might grab headlines, but it risks long-term damage to alliances and energy security. As the conflict drags on, honesty from all sides is the real weapon needed—not spin.
Avoid Paying Taxes in 2025
Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote
ENB Top News
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack