U.S. taking Putin’s side would be a ‘historic mistake,’ says Zelenskyy

U.S. support has helped Ukraine resist Russia for four and a half years. If Washington formally sided with Moscow, Ukraine could lose a vital military, intelligence, and diplomatic partner. Zelenskyy warned that Ukraine would not be able to prevail or stand if the United States and Russia acted together.

The shift could involve lifting pressure on Russia, reducing weapons or intelligence support, and restricting technologies Ukraine uses in combat. The article points to waived sanctions, briefly blocked intelligence about ballistic missiles, and limits on Starlink access. These actions would reduce Ukraine’s ability to anticipate attacks and protect infrastructure.

The article does not describe a formal U.S.-Russia alliance. Instead, Zelenskyy fears a pattern of decisions that benefits Putin and weakens Kyiv. He still called Trump an ally and hoped decisions would change, while peace talks remained stalled and Russia occupied around a fifth of Ukraine.

Congress passed sweeping sanctions designed to pressure Russia by targeting revenue from its oil and gas exports. The measures were signed by Trump last month and had bipartisan support. Their purpose was to make it harder for Russia to earn money from energy sales that can support its war effort.

Trump later issued an executive order waiving the sanctions. A waiver means the restrictions would not be applied, at least for the circumstances covered by the order. The article says he justified the move as being in the United States’ national interests. Senator James Lankford defended it as an effort to balance pressure on Russia with high American gas prices.

The decision angered or worried Ukrainian officials. It came days after a deal with Putin to release hundreds of thousands of tons of Russian diesel onto global markets. Zelenskyy said the move could strengthen Putin’s will to occupy Ukraine.

Russia currently occupies around a fifth of Ukraine, according to the article. The frontline has seen little recent movement, but the war continues to threaten Ukrainian territory and civilians. Ukraine also faces a difficult winter and a critical shortage of munitions.

U.S. support matters because it helps Ukraine detect attacks, defend infrastructure, and maintain battlefield communications. The article says the United States has been Ukraine’s most significant backer across four and a half years of war. It also describes U.S. intelligence sharing about incoming ballistic missiles and Starlink technology used to intercept jet-powered drones.

That support is not unlimited or politically secure. Intelligence sharing was briefly blocked before being restored, and limits were placed on Starlink access. Peace talks have effectively stalled, while Ukraine says Russia rejects a short-term ceasefire and demands terms equivalent to full surrender.

Ukraine’s defenses depend on timely information, ammunition, and reliable battlefield communications. Limiting any of these can reduce its ability to spot threats, respond quickly, and protect civilians or infrastructure. The article says Ukraine already faces a critical munitions shortage before another difficult winter.

A concrete example came when U.S. intelligence sharing was briefly blocked. Zelenskyy said Ukraine was blinded to incoming ballistic missiles during that interruption. The article also says Starlink technology is critical for intercepting jet-powered drones, and that SpaceX placed limits on access after what Ukrainian officials believed was a message from the U.S. government.

The intelligence sharing has since been “deblocked,” and Zelenskyy said it now works. But the episode shows how dependent Ukraine is on outside systems. Continued restrictions could weaken air defense and battlefield coordination, while reduced weapons would make Russian strikes harder to resist.

Releasing Russian diesel onto global markets can be presented as an economic measure. More fuel supplies may help ease shortages and reduce price pressure. Trump expressed hope that the deal would address soaring fuel costs, and Senator Lankford said putting American people first meant responding to high gas prices.

The same deal can benefit Russia. Selling hundreds of thousands of tons of diesel gives Moscow access to revenue while sanctions are being waived. That money can help sustain Russia’s position in the war. Zelenskyy therefore warned that the deal would strengthen Putin’s will to occupy Ukraine.

The article also disputes the deal’s likely effect on U.S. prices. Zelenskyy said it would not have a real influence because rising prices were caused by the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, not Ukraine. The competing goals are clear: lower energy costs for consumers, while avoiding stronger Russian war-making capacity.

A ceasefire is an agreement to stop or pause fighting, often temporarily. Peace negotiations are talks aimed at resolving the conflict and deciding future security or territorial arrangements. A full surrender is different: it means one side accepts defeat and the victor’s conditions. These stages can overlap, but they do not carry the same consequences.

The article says Ukraine has reported that Russia rejected a short-term ceasefire. It also says peace talks have effectively stalled because Putin’s terms are viewed by Kyiv as tantamount to full surrender. This means Ukraine sees the proposed settlement not as a balanced compromise, but as a demand to give up.

The distinction matters for what happens next. A ceasefire might reduce immediate violence without settling the war. Negotiations could seek a lasting agreement. Surrender terms would end resistance on Russia’s conditions. Zelenskyy remained open to speaking with U.S. negotiators, but no breakthrough is described.

Wars depend on more than soldiers and weapons. Economic pressure can reduce an opponent’s revenue. Energy supplies affect prices, transport, and industrial activity. Intelligence provides warnings about attacks. Military communications connect units and help them respond. Together, these systems influence how long a country can fight and how effectively it can defend itself.

The article gives several examples. Congress targeted Russia’s oil and gas revenue through sanctions, while Trump waived them. A diesel deal could increase fuel supplies but also provide Russia with sales revenue. U.S. intelligence warned Ukraine about ballistic missiles, and Starlink helped intercept jet-powered drones. Each tool changes battlefield capacity or economic pressure.

That is why decisions by Washington, Russia, and SpaceX matter beyond diplomacy. Restored intelligence can improve Ukraine’s defenses, while restrictions can create dangerous gaps. Energy policy can help consumers but also benefit Moscow. These choices may influence negotiations, civilian safety, and the war’s direction.