On 10-12 I wrote up the first night of the "energy ceasefire" Trump announced on 10-11. A day later there is enough to compare the claim with a short record. The record is lopsided on one point and unsettled on another, and a new question about US intelligence sharing has opened that nobody has answered.
What Trump says now
Asked on the White House lawn on 10-12 why he says both sides agreed when neither Moscow nor Kyiv has confirmed it, Trump said: "They agreed because I said they agreed" (Kyiv Independent; the Washington Examiner carries the same words). The Kremlin's position is unchanged: Peskov says contacts are continuing, declined to say whether any truce covers only refineries, and rejected Kyiv's wider request. "We do not want a ceasefire," he said, "we want long-term peace" (RFI).
The tally
| Window | Russian strikes on Ukrainian energy | Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries | |---|---|---| | Sun 10-11, after the post | Kharkiv CHP-5, per Zelensky (Kyiv Independent) | None confirmed | | Night 10-11/12 | Naftogaz gas production site, Kharkiv region, per its acting chairman (bne IntelliNews, citing Interfax-Ukraine) | None reported, per the Moscow Times | | Mon 10-12 | At least six energy targets, including a gas facility and a petrol station, per Zelensky (RFI) | None confirmed | | Night 10-12/13 | None reported; Russia's defence ministry summary mentions no energy sites, though one missile landed about 1 km from a Lviv heating plant (France 24/Reuters) | None confirmed |
Zelensky says Ukraine has not hit Russian refineries "or the energy sector in general" in the two days since the announcement (Moscow Times). What I found outside Zelensky's own statement is thinner: the Moscow Times reports Ukrainian forces appeared to refrain from refinery targets, and bne's refinery ledger, which leans on the Moscow Times, lists no confirmed refinery strike since the announcement. Ukraine has not stopped hitting Russia. Russia's defence ministry claims 604 Ukrainian drones overnight into 10-13 and Moscow's mayor says 417 were aimed at the capital region; those are Russian claims, and what the drones damaged is mostly unreported beyond debris in the Nevinnomyssk industrial zone and delays at Moscow airports. Reuters says it is unclear whether Moscow left energy sites alone on the last night deliberately. One quiet night is the weakest evidence in the table.
The warning that didn't arrive
Late on 10-12 ballistic missiles hit Kyiv before any air-raid alert sounded; at least two people died and 11 were injured. The count of missiles differs by source: five in Zelensky's statement and the Kyiv Independent, six in bne's report of Ukrainian military assessments. Zelensky wrote that Ukraine "received no early warning from our partners" (Kyiv Post). He did not name them.
That landed after FT, Reuters, CNN and Axios reported, per Kyiv Post and bne, that US officials had threatened to suspend intelligence sharing and PURL weapons purchases if Kyiv kept hitting Russian refineries. I have not seen the US confirm or deny the threat. So the question came immediately: did the US switch off the launch warning?
What I can show is limited. Foreign Minister Sybiha said on 10-13 that intelligence cooperation with the US continues and attributed the late alert to the type of weapon. The Kyiv Independent reports Ukrainian and American sources saying no decision was made to cut sharing. A senior Ukrainian official told it the Americans said they "just didn't see" the launch; he called that "a weak excuse" and floated the idea that it was "a game" to test Kyiv's reaction. The same article says nothing provided shows a deliberate withholding, and an expert it quotes says the satellite detection network is reliable but not infallible. bne states plainly that no source has connected the two. Zelensky's adviser said on 10-12 that this is not the first time partners failed to register an S-400 launch.
That leaves two readings that the public record cannot separate: a detection or communication failure, or a signal. A repeat would help tell them apart; one event does not.
The law clock
Separately, the diesel side of the deal runs into section 112 of the Graham Act on 10-18, as I wrote on 10-11. Two things have changed since.
Treasury Secretary Bessent said on Fox on 10-11: "we are going to do it with all the legal authorities we have," and that anyone in Congress saying either the old law or the Graham Act bars it "is wrong." He did not say which authorities, or how the administration would handle the tariff deadline (IANS via Hans India). And seven senators, four Republicans and three Democrats including Susan Collins, put out a joint statement calling the imports "directly counter" to the 2022 law and saying the administration "failed to consult with Congress or submit any explanation" as the statute requires. Early wire copy counted six signers; the committee page lists seven, with Wyden.
I still found no duty notice and no waiver certification as of this morning. The text I quoted on 10-11 hasn't changed: section 114(h)(2) preserves Treasury's power to issue new general licenses, section 115 requires a written certification and report before a duty is waived, and GL 135 was issued 10-09, after the 09-18 enactment that section 114(h)(1) uses as its cutoff.
Still open
- What the "ceasefire" covers. Nobody with authority has published terms.
- Whether Russia's quiet night on 10-12/13 is a policy or a gap.
- Whether the missed Kyiv warning repeats.
- What happens on 10-18: a duty notice, a section 115 filing, or nothing.
- The 604-drone figure and the damage from it rest on Russian official statements and local governors; I have no independent damage assessment.