U.S. Presidential Envoy Steve Witkov flew to St. Petersburg, Russia, on Wednesday (October 21) after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Oslo, Norway, to meet with the Russian leadership. This move aims to deliver peace proposals, including security guarantees, and to facilitate the first possible direct meeting between Putin, Zelensky, and U.S. President Donald Trump since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022, in an effort to create conditions for a ceasefire.

I. A diplomatic surge driven by diesel prices and the election calendar

On Tuesday (October 20), U.S. Special Envoy Steve Vitkov met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Norwegian Prime Minister Max Støre, Finnish President Stubb, and representatives from the UK, France, Germany, and Poland in Oslo. He then flew to St. Petersburg on October 21 to present Russian President Vladimir Putin with a peace plan jointly drafted by the U.S. and Europe. The core of the plan is no longer an abstract "ceasefire appeal," but a comprehensive document encompassing guarantees for Ukraine's future security, a lasting security architecture between Russia and Europe, and even a framework for post-war economic cooperation. Zelensky confirmed after the meeting that the document included various security options, including a collective defense arrangement "similar to NATO's Article 5" and a so-called "lighter version of Article 5." However, the driving force behind this diplomatic push goes far beyond the battlefield stalemate itself. Ten days earlier, the Trump administration, citing the need to alleviate domestic diesel prices, issued a general permit authorizing the import of Russian diesel until April 7, 2027, and announced that Russia would immediately supply the U.S. market with more than 300,000 tons of diesel, with an additional 500,000 tons in November. The immediate context of this decision is that the average retail price of diesel fuel across the United States reached $6.2785 per gallon on October 9, a year-on-year increase of over 70%, with less than a month remaining until the midterm elections on November 3. The temporal coupling between the diplomatic agenda and electoral politics constitutes a key clue to understanding this round of negotiations.

II. PURL Mechanism: Europe provides the funds, the US provides the goods, and Ukraine waits.

Zelensky's repeated emphasis on "security guarantees" in Oslo manifests itself, at the operational level, primarily in the continuous supply of air defense capabilities. Currently, approximately 95% of Ukraine's Patriot interceptor missiles are acquired through the "Ukraine Priority Requests List" (PURL) mechanism. Launched in July 2025, this mechanism is funded by NATO member states and partner countries, with the United States responsible for supplying US-made weapons; each weapons package is worth approximately $500 million. As of September 2026, 29 countries have participated, contributing a total of approximately $6.7 billion, with Norway ($1.36 billion), the Netherlands ($1.16 billion), and Germany ($900 million) ranking among the top contributors. The PURL mechanism's funding requirement for 2026 is $15 billion, indicating a significant gap between current commitments and the target. This gap is not merely a paper figure. On October 20, US Secretary of State Rubio acknowledged that a batch of interceptor missiles procured through PURL "may not yet have been delivered," but he denied that this was due to political directives aimed at harming Ukraine, attributing the delays to Defense Secretary Hergese's judgment based on "US defense interests." In other words, even if European funds are in place, the ultimate control over the delivery schedule remains in Washington's hands. PURL addresses the question of "who pays," but not "when the goods will arrive," and the latter decision is precisely the structural lever by which the Trump administration exerts pressure on Kyiv.

III. Fiscal Cover-Ups in Europe and the Political Stalemate of "Paying the Bill with Russian Assets"

With direct US military aid essentially halted and the delivery schedule of PURL uncertain, Europe is bearing an increasingly heavy financial burden. The EU has pledged €90 billion in loans to Ukraine between 2026 and 2027, with €60 billion specifically designated for defense capacity building and arms procurement, and €30 billion for maintaining the national budget. However, the disbursement of this loan is conditional on progress in the rule of law and anti-corruption efforts, resulting in a slower-than-expected disbursement to Kyiv. On October 16, Zelenskyy told EU leaders in Brussels that the cost of the war in 2027 is projected to be around €155 billion, and requested European partners to seek at least €70 billion in additional support. The crux of the dispute in filling the gap lies in the approximately €200 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets. Some member states advocate using these assets to finance Ukraine, but the EU has consistently failed to reach a consensus. Ultimately, the €90 billion loan was raised by the EU through borrowing in the capital markets, with the prospect of repayment through future Russian war reparations. This arrangement ties Ukraine's long-term solvency to a highly uncertain legal and political premise: whether, when, and on what scale Russia will pay reparations remains unenforceable. European financial commitments are impressive in scale, but their sustainability is uncertain.

IV. Meeting Conditions in Moscow: A Double Threshold of Location and Substance

The Kremlin's stance on the trilateral summit constitutes the toughest constraint in the diplomatic process. Putin has repeatedly stated that he does not rule out meeting with Zelensky, but such a meeting "can only take place when both sides are preparing to sign an agreement," and insists that Moscow be the meeting location, or at least that a meeting in a third country must be contingent on "a final agreement on a peace treaty of long-term historical significance." This means that Russia defines the leaders' summit as a "signing ceremony," not a "negotiation platform." Vitkov's challenge in St. Petersburg lies not only in whether the content of his proposal is acceptable to Moscow, but also in whether he can persuade Putin to change his preconceived notions about the nature of the summit. Substantively, the "NATO fifth article" of security guarantees is itself a clause that Moscow finds difficult to swallow. Ukraine insists that any peace agreement must include credible commitments similar to collective defense, and one of Russia's core objectives in waging war is precisely to prevent Ukraine from obtaining such protection. The Trump administration attempted to compromise with a “lighter version of Article 5,” but the extent of “lighter” remains unclear: whether it is an automatic military response, a consultation and assistance obligation, or merely a political statement. These technical differences will determine whether the proposal is acceptable in Kyiv and Moscow, respectively.

V. Energy Warfare on the Battlefield: The Logic of Pressure Outside the Negotiating Table

Diplomatic efforts failed to halt attacks on energy facilities on the battlefield. From October 18th to 19th, Russian forces launched a large-scale missile and drone attack on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, damaging 28 substations and key energy facilities, leaving at least 550,000 households without power. The Ukrainian state power company subsequently announced nationwide industrial blackouts. The previous week, Russian attacks on Kyiv, Kyiv Oblast, and Kharkiv had already caused power outages for at least 600,000 people. Trump had publicly called on both sides to cease attacks on each other's energy systems, but Russia showed no signs of compliance, and Ukraine resumed its attacks on Russian oil refining facilities after a brief pause. A clear causal chain exists between the energy war and the diesel waiver: Ukraine's attacks on Russian oil refining facilities heightened tensions in the global diesel market, while soaring domestic diesel prices in the United States directly threatened the ruling party's prospects in the midterm elections. Trump's response by waiving Russian diesel sanctions was both an emergency intervention in domestic prices and, objectively, weakened Ukraine's leverage in pressuring Russia's energy sector. Zelensky's public reaction was one of "betrayal," while Trump's subsequent response was to urge Ukraine to "change its president," and to claim that Zelensky "may never have wanted to end the war." The trust deficit between the US and Ukraine has expanded from policy differences to fundamental doubts about each other's political intentions.

Editor's Summary

Witkov's trip marks the US, under the Trump administration, attempting to engage directly with both Ukraine and Russia to push for a possible trilateral summit. While the Oslo talks reached some consensus on security guarantees and post-war economic arrangements, significant rifts remain between the US and Ukraine regarding military support, intelligence sharing, and policies toward Russia. Trump has publicly demanded that Ukraine demonstrate a willingness to end the conflict and has repeatedly criticized Zelensky, increasing external pressure on Kyiv. Russia, on the other hand, has maintained a hardline stance in both diplomacy and battlefield operations, continuing its attacks on Ukraine's energy system. Whether the peace process can truly restart depends on Russia's response to its proposals, whether the specific content of security guarantees can be accepted by all parties, and whether US-Ukraine relations can be further stabilized. The current situation remains highly uncertain, and any substantial breakthrough requires a balance between direct dialogue at the leadership level and the core concerns of all parties.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why is the Oslo meeting considered a significant milestone? A: This was the first high-level face-to-face communication between the special envoys of both sides and Ukrainian and European leaders after the recent significant tensions in US-Ukraine relations. The talks not only discussed security guarantees but also reached a consensus on how to present coordinated recommendations to Russia. Previously, friction had arisen between the US and Ukraine over issues such as intelligence sharing, weapons delivery, and the Starlink system. This meeting helped ease the crisis of mutual trust and paved the way for Witkov's trip to Russia, thus being seen by all parties as a signal that the peace process is "back on track." Q: What exactly does a security guarantee similar to NATO Article 5 refer to? Why does Ukraine insist on it? A: NATO Article 5 stipulates that an attack on one member state is considered an attack on all members, thus triggering collective defense. The similar arrangement discussed by Ukraine aims to provide a credible external security commitment after the war to prevent another large-scale invasion. Zelenskyy clearly stated that Ukraine cannot accept any peace agreement lacking genuine guarantees. This reflects Kyiv's wariness of historical experience—verbal promises or limited support alone cannot guarantee long-term security, hence the insistence on this as a core condition. Q: Why has Trump publicly pressured Ukraine to end the conflict and criticized Zelenskyy? A: Trump prioritizes lowering US fuel prices, aiming to influence the market by reaching a diesel supply agreement with Russia and waiving some sanctions. Simultaneously, he believes that with Russian military advances on the battlefield, Ukraine should demonstrate greater flexibility to achieve a ceasefire as soon as possible. He has repeatedly stated that Zelensky is "not very helpful" and even hinted at replacing the negotiator. These statements have exacerbated the rift between the US and Ukraine and raised concerns among European allies that the US might unilaterally adjust its support for Ukraine. Q: How likely is it that Witkov's meeting with Putin in Russia will successfully push for a trilateral summit? A: The probability of success remains uncertain. The Kremlin has previously insisted that any meeting with Zelensky must be held in Moscow, and Russia maintains a hardline stance on core issues such as territory and neutrality. The US hopes to create conditions for trilateral talks by presenting a proposal including security guarantees. If Putin responds positively to the proposal and agrees to meet at a location outside Moscow or under neutral arrangements, the possibility increases; if Russia continues to demand significant concessions from Ukraine, the process may again stall. Q: What impact will the current parallel military and diplomatic efforts have on energy and global markets? A: The Russian military's continued attacks on Ukrainian energy facilities have caused widespread power outages, while Ukraine has resumed attacks on Russian oil refineries, making energy infrastructure a target of mutual attacks. Trump's proposed "energy ceasefire" has failed to materialize. Increased Russian diesel exports may alleviate some market supply pressure in the short term, but the ongoing conflict and uncertainty surrounding sanctions waivers will continue to cause volatility in international oil prices and energy security. European countries, meanwhile, need to simultaneously address energy risks and long-term plans for supporting Ukraine. As of 09:49 Beijing time, Brent crude oil is trading at $110.11 per barrel.