Three Arguments For & Against Russia Extending Its “Energy Ceasefire” With Ukraine

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Both scenarios entail considerable risks.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Putin will have the final say on whether Russia extends its 30-day moratorium on strikes against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure that’ll expire on Friday. He also noted that “the moratorium has essentially not been observed by the Ukrainian side”, which is true, but the US hasn’t pressured Ukraine to comply with its part of the agreement. Here are three respective arguments for and against Russia extending its “energy ceasefire” with Ukraine:

———-

1. Maintain Positive Diplomatic Dynamics With The US

Talks with the US are generally going well so Russia might want to maintain these positive diplomatic dynamics with a view towards making tangible progress on normalizing ties and ending their proxy war. To that end, Putin could once again opt for patience and restraint since the threats posed by Ukraine’s continued violation of their “energy ceasefire” remain manageable, thus enabling Russia to possibly obtain more of its goals through diplomacy than if it reverted to relying solely on military means.

2. Dispel The Neocons’ Claims About Russia’s Intentions

Warmongering forces within the American Establishment and among their media allies have claimed that Russia is untrustworthy, and this perception could be lent false credence if Putin declines to extend the “energy ceasefire”, thus potentially adding unbearable pressure upon Trump to end their talks. The neocon faction might then command more influence over the administration with all that entails for a dangerous escalation with Russia if they then convince Trump to double down on support for Ukraine.

3. Incentivize The US To Finally Apply Pressure On Ukraine

Part of the Russian-US talks concern strategic resource cooperation, which understandably takes a long time to negotiate due to the nitty-gritty details, so maintaining positive diplomatic dynamics in spite of Ukraine’s continued violation of the “energy ceasefire” could raise the odds of a major deal. Should one be clinched, then the US might then be much more incentivized to finally apply pressure on Ukraine, both with regard to respecting this moratorium and conceding to more of Russia’s demands for peace.

—–

1. Show That Putin Won’t Be “Led By The Nose” Again

On the other hand, deciding against extending the “energy ceasefire” that Ukraine never abided by would show Trump that Putin won’t be “led by the nose” again, which refers to how the Russian leader characterized former German Chancellor Merkel’s manipulation of him through the Minsk Accords. Putin could calculate that this would uphold his personal reputation, make Trump respect him more as a leader, and therefore raise the odds of the US pressuring Ukraine to comply with any future deals.

2. “Escalate To De-Escalate” On Better Terms For Russia

By resuming attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, perhaps dramatically so through the use of more hypersonic medium-range Oreshniks, Russia could “escalate to de-escalate” with the intent of achieving better terms for itself through whatever subsequent deals the US might broker with Ukraine. This strategy would amount to giving the US a dose of its own medicine that Biden applied to Russia, but there’s no guarantee that it’ll have the intended effect with the much more differently wired Trump.

3. Decisively Exploit Perceived American Weaknesses

Be that as it may, Putin’s calculation could be that the US has become so weak over the past few months due to Trump’s eagerness to “Pivot (back) to Asia”, the resultant rift that this created with Europe, and his global trade war that Russia would be foolish not to exploit this by pulling out all the stops in Ukraine. This thinking takes for granted that the US couldn’t or wouldn’t rally the West to “escalate to de-escalate” in kind but would meekly withdraw from the conflict instead, which can’t be known for sure.

———-

Both scenarios entail considerable risks, with another extension possibly leading to Trump manipulating Putin just like Merkel did while rejecting an extension could result in a serious Russian-US escalation, though their respective benefits could potentially be the diplomatic or military resolution of this conflict. Putin is very cautious and averse to escalations, however, so he might be inclined to extend Russia’s de facto unilateral compliance with this lopsided “energy ceasefire” unless “hardliners” dissuade him.