Trump wants Ukraine’s pipeline as ‘repayment’ for weapons—Zelensky says not so fast

Why is the United States demanding control over Ukraine’s gas pipeline?

Tensions between the United States and Ukraine have intensified following a controversial demand from U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to take control of a major Ukrainian gas pipeline that transports Russian gas into Europe. The proposal, which surfaced during high-level negotiations in Washington, has been widely interpreted by Ukrainian observers and some U.S. analysts as a “colonial shakedown”—a reference to the nature and tone of the demands tied to previous U.S. military assistance.

The deal under discussion would reportedly hand control of the 750-mile pipeline—running from Sudzha in western Russia to Uzhhorod on Ukraine’s border with Slovakia—to the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. This pipeline remains a vital conduit for Russian gas into the European Union despite the war and ongoing sanctions. The request was tabled as part of a broader minerals-for-weapons exchange, wherein the United States is seeking partial control or profit-sharing access to Ukraine’s significant deposits of oil, natural gas, and rare earth elements in exchange for earlier military aid provided during the Biden administration.

What is the strategic significance of the pipeline at the centre of the dispute?

The pipeline in question has long been a critical energy artery connecting Russia to Europe via Ukrainian territory. Built during the Soviet era, it has historically been one of the main transit routes for Russian natural gas exports. The infrastructure allowed Ukraine to earn substantial transit fees, even during years of open conflict following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion in 2022.

The five-year agreement between Ukraine and Russia’s state-owned energy giant Gazprom expired on January 1, 2025. Since then, Ukraine has halted all gas flow through the route. The freeze is not only a reflection of ongoing hostilities but also an effort by Kyiv to cut itself off from reliance on any Russian-linked energy revenue while simultaneously seeking new Western partnerships to monetise its energy infrastructure.

How has Ukraine responded to the US proposal?

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed guarded openness to a broader agreement but has pushed back against terms perceived as exploitative. He has insisted that any resource-sharing deal must be mutually beneficial and proposed a 50-50 revenue-sharing arrangement as a fairer alternative to U.S. control. Zelensky framed his response by asserting that Ukraine’s national assets must serve its people first and warned that unbalanced deals could threaten the country’s sovereignty.

Economist Volodymyr Landa from the Centre for Economic Strategy in Kyiv called the proposal “colonial-type” and predicted strong domestic resistance to any agreement seen as ceding national control in exchange for past security aid that was not conditional at the time of its delivery. Ukrainian officials and civil society groups have warned that accepting such terms could open the door to further resource-based leverage by foreign governments.

Is the U.S. offering anything in return for control of Ukrainian infrastructure?

At present, reports suggest that President Trump is unwilling to provide new military aid or security guarantees in exchange for economic concessions. Instead, his administration has framed the demand as a form of repayment for the billions of dollars in military support previously provided under the Biden administration. Last week, Trump publicly accused Zelensky of attempting to “back out of an agreement” and warned that Ukraine’s president would face “big problems” if the proposed deal was rejected.

These remarks have raised further concerns in Kyiv about the shifting nature of U.S. foreign policy and the potential reorientation from security-based aid to economically driven quid pro quo arrangements. Analysts point out that such moves may undermine Ukraine’s war-time resilience and could weaken Western unity at a critical stage of the conflict.

What role does geopolitics and energy strategy play in this negotiation?

Ukraine’s location and energy infrastructure give it significant geopolitical weight, particularly as Europe looks to permanently reduce dependence on Russian energy supplies. The gas pipeline not only represents a financial asset but also a strategic tool. Prior to the war, Ukraine served as a vital corridor for up to 40% of Russia’s gas exports to the EU. Although that figure has dropped due to alternate routes like Nord Stream and LNG imports, the Ukrainian pipeline still holds value—particularly if repurposed for Western transit or reconfigured for hydrogen or other energy exports.

Washington’s interest in the pipeline is seen by some energy analysts as an attempt to reshape the region’s energy flow by placing a NATO-aligned country in control of a historically Russian-European route. By overseeing the infrastructure through its development finance arm, the United States could facilitate future decoupling of Europe from Russian energy and accelerate Ukraine’s integration into Western energy networks.

However, the geopolitical optics of the move have drawn criticism from both domestic and international observers, many of whom argue that the proposal undermines the principle of sovereignty that the U.S. has consistently defended in the war’s broader context.

What did Trump’s envoys say, and how did that shape the debate?

In a separate but related controversy, U.S. special envoy Keith Kellogg triggered outrage after suggesting that Ukraine could be partitioned similar to post-World War II Berlin. Speaking to The Times, Kellogg outlined a scenario where Russian troops remained in currently occupied areas while Western forces, such as the UK and France, stationed themselves in Kyiv. His remarks appeared to endorse a frozen conflict model, implicitly accepting partial Russian control over Ukrainian territory.

Following criticism, Kellogg attempted to clarify on social media, stating that he was referring to a “post-ceasefire resiliency force in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty.” However, the clarification did little to calm concerns in Ukraine and among allies, where the original comments were seen as legitimizing territorial concessions to Russia.

Adding to the diplomatic friction, Steve Witkoff, another Trump envoy, was reported to have met Russian President Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg to discuss a “peace plan.” The plan included allowing Russia to retain control of four provinces—some still under Ukrainian government control—raising alarm over potential backdoor negotiations that undermine Ukraine’s war aims.

How does this fit into Ukraine’s broader energy and economic strategy?

With gas transit revenues gone and pressure mounting from multiple sides, Ukraine has been accelerating its pivot away from Russian-linked energy flows. DTEK, the country’s largest private energy firm, is expanding its liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States, aligning itself more closely with Western energy infrastructure. These efforts aim to secure energy independence while leveraging Ukraine’s natural resources for development without external coercion.

At the same time, Ukraine is exploring joint ventures and infrastructure upgrades to accommodate new sources of revenue, including renewable energy and European grid integration. Any deals involving the country’s strategic infrastructure, especially in the energy and minerals sectors, are now closely watched by both domestic stakeholders and international watchdogs.

What are the long-term implications for Ukraine–US relations?

The current dispute underscores the fragile nature of Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction trajectory. While U.S. support has been vital in countering Russian aggression, the Trump administration’s recent approach signals a significant shift in how that support might be monetized. If demands for repayment come without new assistance or guarantees, the U.S. risks appearing transactional and self-serving in the eyes of Ukrainians and other global observers.

For Ukraine, the challenge remains balancing gratitude for past support with the need to safeguard its sovereignty, energy independence, and long-term national interests. The proposed pipeline takeover has become a litmus test for how equitable future Western engagement will be—and whether the rhetoric of partnership translates into practice without coercion.