Drone Sanctions: Ukraine's Real Strategy While Trump Talks Peace
How the West Is Calling Putin's Peace Bluff
"The European Union does not intend to trust any agreement with Russia and will continue imposing sanctions on Moscow, while at the same time strengthening Ukraine's armed forces and defense industry," EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas said yesterday.
It was probably unnerving to watch European leaders constantly discuss security guarantees and post-peace deal scenarios when most of us know no deal is coming until Russia watches its frontline crumble. But when Kaja Kallas declares the EU won't trust any Russian agreement, should we dismiss her the way European leaders dismissed her warnings about Russian intentions nearly a month before the invasion?
Not this time.
The apparent contradiction feels jarring because Western media thrives on confusion. They understand that constant awareness of uncomfortable truths doesn't drive clicks or ad revenue, so they take the path of least resistance: feeding us contradictory narratives. But beneath the media noise, European leaders have quietly signaled the same stance as Kallas for months now.
The evidence is brief but compelling.
French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking on August 19th after the EU-Trump meeting: "A country that invests 40% of its budget in such weapons, which has mobilized an army of more than 1.3 million people, will not immediately return to the status of a state in an open democratic system. Let's not be naive. Even for its own survival, it needs to continue eating."
He called Russia "a predator, an ogre at our gates." Macron's role as the pivotal figure in any future peace agreement is no accident. France remains the only nuclear power without embedded American components, and its presidential system makes him commander-in-chief—much like the United States. This independence explains why France ranks as the second-biggest target, after America, for Russian misinformation campaigns. The tangled connections between Marine Le Pen's party and the Kremlin provide all the evidence we need.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was equally blunt: "Russia's demand that Kyiv give up the free parts of Donbas is like asking the US to give up Florida. No one should force Ukraine into territorial concessions. Ukraine itself must decide this in the course of negotiations."
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's position: Putin must prove he is serious about peace.
Europe isn't contradicting itself—talking peace in one breath while insisting Putin won't agree in the next. They're preparing two different playbooks that can be deployed as circumstances demand.
I will let Politico explain the plan:
European leaders don’t believe Vladimir Putin is sincere about a peace deal — so their strategy is to humor and praise Donald Trump until he finally reaches the same conclusion and realizes he will need to get tougher on the Kremlin.
The European side thinks it’s a win-win approach. They will be delighted to be proved wrong if the U.S. president can negotiate an end to the Ukraine war with meaningful security guarantees, but the primary game plan is all about calling the Russian leader’s bluff and lobbying for tougher sanctions.
“Do I think that President Putin wants peace? The answer is no. If you want my deepest belief: No. Do I think that President Trump wants peace? Yes,” Macron said before departing for Washington, where he joined talks on Monday. “I don’t think that President Putin wants peace. I think he wants the capitulation of Ukraine. That’s what he has proposed.
According to five diplomats, granted anonymity to shed light on the sensitive calls, the presidents, prime ministers and ambassadors largely aligned with Macron. They expressed deep skepticism that the Kremlin would negotiate in good faith — but were optimistic that Washington would punish Russia if Putin was shown to be the biggest obstacle to peace.
Politico's assessment is spot-on, and this is exactly the path Europe has chosen. I'm in complete alignment with their strategy. When Putin traveled to Alaska, he arrived with multiple objectives. Chief among them was dividing Europe and the United States—a goal that has now backfired spectacularly. That's already one victory in our column.
Now comes the crucial part: Europe and Ukraine must build on this unified front. They're already working on it, though it will take several more weeks for the strategy to fully crystallize.
Why is that?
Because Europe pushed for a meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which President Trump agreed to. Reports indicate Trump told Putin exactly that, and there's a zero percent chance Putin rejected the idea outright in that moment. He likely led Trump to believe he might actually attend. Now he's scrambling, pushing his ministers to help him escape the trap.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's contradictory statements tell the story: First, he wants to start negotiations at official levels before graduating to higher-level talks. Then he said Putin and Zelensky cannot meet before the end of August. Then he suggested Putin and Zelensky may never meet at all. Finally, he floated the idea that Russia should participate in discussions about granting security guarantees to Ukraine.
Does this sound like chaos? Absolutely. But Moscow's introduction of the security guarantee proposal was deliberate—a shiny object for Western media. The message: stop focusing on the Putin-Zelensky meeting because we have no idea what to do with it. Instead, chase this outrageous story about Russia helping guarantee Ukraine's security.
And I'm certain major Western outlets will take the bait. No doubt whatsoever.
Nevertheless, the Zelensky-Putin meeting trap is already working. Russia wants to bail, and that gives Ukraine all the license it needs to target Russian refineries. And they've been exceptionally busy this month.
August 02— Novokuibyshevsky Refinery and Ryazan Refinery
August 07 —Afipsky Refinery
August 10— Saratov Refinery
August 14 —Volgograd Refinery
August 15— Syzran Refinery
August 21 — Novoshakhtinsky Refinery
The results are already visible. Production has dropped by 13%. I particularly trust this data because it comes from the Moscow Times.
Just two weeks of attacks yielded these results. Russia has dozens more refineries scattered across its vast territory. But here's the strategic beauty: refined products are high-margin assets with ample production capacity worldwide. Destroying them won't disrupt global oil markets—crude production remains untouched, and other producers can easily absorb Russia's lost refined output.
Russia, however, faces a different reality. With over 140 million people spread across the world's largest country, domestic demand for refined products is enormous. Any production drop triggers immediate supply disruptions, drives up gasoline prices, and feeds inflation—exactly the kind of economic pressure that erodes public support and strains government resources.
Trump will likely take months to implement meaningful sanctions, if he ever does. There are countless bureaucratic hurdles, and frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it never happens. But here's what he won't do: ask Ukraine to stop hitting refineries. As I argued yesterday, Ukraine should expand this campaign systematically.
Steady, relentless drone sanctions targeting only refined products. That's the formula. Let Trump and the Kremlin negotiate endlessly—there's no rush. Every day of talks gives Ukraine more time to methodically degrade Russia's economic foundation, one refinery at a time.
Recent polling data reveals why Europe's strategy is not just sound—it's politically inevitable. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Republican support for military aid to Ukraine has surged from 30% to 51% since Trump took office, while overall American support holds firm at 62%.
This Republican rebound is the key to understanding Europe's confidence. Trump's own party is moving toward greater support for Ukraine, not less. When Republicans who were skeptical under Biden now back military aid under Trump, it signals that the president and more importantly GOP Senators have political cover to take a harder line if Putin proves intractable.
Europe is betting that Trump will read these numbers correctly. His base isn't demanding capitulation to Russia—they're giving him room to be tough. The 21-point Republican surge since Trump's inauguration means he can pivot from diplomacy to pressure without losing his core supporters.
This polling explains why Ukraine can continue its refinery campaign with complete confidence. The domestic political winds are shifting in favor of sustained support, giving Ukraine the space to maintain "drone sanctions" while diplomatic theater unfolds.
The numbers don't lie: time and political momentum are both on Ukraine's side. The time to make it count is here.
Your support helps The Concis fly the flag for Ukraine—and for every democracy—a little stronger, a little higher
Thank you for this.
I make a point of reading your articles before going to the NYT.
The NYT reporting on Russia and the war is almost comically biassed.
It's important to remember that the wheels may come off of the Russian army any moment, minute, hour, day, week, or month. It's happened before. 1917 comes to mind. If half of the conditions on the front for Russian soldiers are true, something inside Russia might trigger a collapse. It's fascinating that we seem to have forgotten Prigozhin actually lead a mutiny in 2023 that appeared to fail from a lack of will. Little by little I can see Russia cracking, and eventually, it ought to go all at once. This isn't to say that Russia still can't claw out a victory, but seriously, the last dictatorship that seems to have had a relatively decent outcome for the nation involved might have been Cromwell in England, so I hope the attraction wears off for another century after this current fit...