Article Summary – U.S. Intel Shift: Helping Ukraine Hit Russia’s Energy Lifeline
-Washington has approved sharing detailed intelligence to help Ukraine target Russia’s energy infrastructure—an escalation meant to starve the Kremlin’s war chest by threatening oil and gas revenues.
-The shift follows President Trump’s recent rhetoric that Kyiv can “fight and win,” and comes alongside pressure on buyers to curb Russian crude and expand LNG alternatives.
-The U.S. is reportedly weighing Tomahawk transfers, while Ukraine pursues its own long-range “Flamingo” missile.
-Moscow calls this proof NATO is a de facto combatant and warns deliveries won’t change the battlefield.
-Whether deep strikes hasten Russian financial pain—or trigger sharper retaliation—will define this phase of the war.
U.S. Military Aid Could Help Kyiv Strike Moscow’s Energy Sector
The Biden-to-Trump handover in U.S. policy on Ukraine had once looked like a pivot toward compromise. Early in his second term, President Donald Trump suggested Kyiv may need to surrender territory to end the war with Russia.
But in a sharp labor turn, the White House has now approved the transfer of intelligence that could help Ukraine strike Russia’s most lucrative assets: its energy infrastructure.
Two U.S. officials publicly said this week that Washington will provide Ukraine with detailed information on potential long-range energy targets inside Russia.
NATO allies are also being asked to contribute intelligence of their own. Such a move is widely seen as an attempt to strangle the Kremlin’s war financing by crippling its oil and gas revenues: the single largest source of cash for Moscow’s campaign.
The Wall Street Journal reports that this new outlook as Trump increasingly frames the war not as an intractable quagmire but as a conflict Kyiv could win outright.
On social media last week, the president declared that Ukraine, with European backing, could “fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.”
For Moscow, this escalation is proof of what it has long alleged: that NATO is effectively a combatant. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Reuters that it was “obvious” that NATO and the United States had already been aiding Ukraine with intelligence.
Kyiv’s war effort could be set for a further boost with the U.S. is reportedly considering supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles, capable of striking targets more than 1,500 miles away—enough to hit Moscow from Ukrainian soil. Ukraine has also begun early production of its own long-range missile, the “Flamingo,” though its availability remains uncertain.
Washington clearly knows that energy exports fund Russia’s war, and every refinery and pipeline put at risk threatens the flow of hard currency into the latter’s coffers.
Trump has already leaned on Europe, India, and Turkey to cut Russian oil purchases, pairing tariffs and diplomatic pressure with promises of greater U.S. liquefied natural gas exports.
European states are beginning to adjust, and Hungary just signed an LNG import deal with France’s Engie. Meanwhile Turkey has inked long-term contracts with American suppliers.
Whether the intelligence-sharing gambit accelerates Russia’s financial pain or provokes sharper retaliation remains to be seen.
Moscow insists Tomahawk deliveries will not fundamentally shift the military context, but it cannot be blind to the pressure building on its energy sector.
Trump may have once promised to “end the war quickly. However, his administration may be shifting toward a more conventional American strategy: economic attrition through economic strangulation, paired with the use of intelligence and missiles to its advantage.
About the Author: Georgia Gilholy
Georgia Gilholy is a journalist based in the United Kingdom who has been published in Newsweek, The Times of Israel, and the Spectator. Gilholy writes about international politics, culture, and education. You can follow her on X: @llggeorgia.
More Military
Thrust Vectoring 101: The Jet Trick That Bends Physics—and Dogfights
The Big F-20 Tigershark Fighter Program Mistake Still Stings
2025: The Year America and Venezuela Go to War?
Forget China’s J-50: U.S. 6th-Generation NGAD Fighters Flew Back in 2019
