Ukraine is facing its most precarious moment since the early days of the war. Since late July, Russia has used its growing stockpile of ballistic missiles and a new generation of jet-powered drones to dramatically intensify its long-range attacks. It is now targeting Ukrainian population centers all over the country, with a focus on logistics, transportation, and commercial infrastructure. According to Ukrainian intelligence reports, the Russian government is planning an even more intense campaign against energy and water supplies this winter in an attempt to decisively break Ukraine’s economy and society.

On October 9, U.S. President Donald Trump seemed to make Ukraine’s situation even more perilous when he announced a deal with Moscow to unilaterally lift sanctions on Russian diesel and called on Ukraine to suspend strikes on Russian oil refineries. Those strikes have been one of Ukraine’s most potent forms of counterpressure in recent months. But Trump’s unexpected announcement is not necessarily a major setback for Ukraine. It comes amid a broader shift by the Trump administration in recent weeks to move away from pursuing an elusive comprehensive peace agreement in favor of a mutual cease-fire on strikes against energy infrastructure—a shift that could ultimately be beneficial to Kyiv. Moreover, in his angry retort to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s criticism of the diesel deal, Trump revealed a potential way forward: as long as Ukraine stopped hitting Russian refineries, the president said, “you can do whatever you want to Russia.”

Ukraine should take Trump at his word. If upheld by Moscow as well as Kyiv, an energy cease-fire would be a crucial step toward containing the war. Framed in the right way, it would also leave open other forms of pressure by Ukraine that could help compel Russian compliance. Ideally, a reciprocal halt in long-range air and missile attacks could then be replicated across other sectors—maritime, commercial, and transportation—thus forming the basis of a broader aerial cease-fire.

Thus far, Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is prepared to halt or even curtail his strike campaign. He sees the widespread destruction of Ukrainian cities and infrastructure as his most direct path to victory. But Putin is also under pressure from the widening war. In part, his accelerating air campaign reflects weakness on the frontlines, where Russia has achieved negligible progress throughout 2026 and Ukraine has even begun to make some gains in the Donbas. Russia also faces growing costs at home from Ukraine’s long-range strikes, which have disrupted energy and commercial infrastructure and heightened public anxiety over a prolonged war.

The United States and Europe can capitalize on Russia’s mounting challenges if they allow Ukraine to apply targeted pressure to convince Moscow to agree to pause or significantly limit its reckless air campaign. To be effective, this approach needs to be combined with focused diplomacy aimed at that specific objective. In fact, there are tools available for this purpose, and the barriers to putting them quickly into play are far more surmountable than has been commonly recognized.

The key will be credibly signaling that critical Russian military and economic assets will be at risk if Russian forces continue pummeling Ukraine’s civilian economy and society. Only then might Putin conclude that his current approach has reached the point of diminishing returns—and then pivot, as he has done at other junctures in the war. At the same time, this diplomatic play must be hitched to a broader effort by Kyiv’s Western partners to help it urgently shore up its air defenses and finances ahead of winter. Such a strategy may not immediately succeed, but failing to try would all but ensure that Ukraine suffers an extraordinary degree of damage that will be much harder to reverse.

The Trump administration’s repeated failure to advance its stated goal of brokering peace between........

© Foreign Affairs