The “energy truce” announced by US President Donald Trump did not last long. After Russian strikes continued on Ukrainian infrastructure networks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced the resumption of targeting Russian refineries, putting the already tense relationship with Washington to a new test. The dispute goes beyond military objectives to a more complex question: Can the United States mediate an end to the war, while rapprochement economically with Russia and demanding that Ukraine give up one of its main tools of pressure on it?
By Thursday, the return to the oil facilities war began to take practical form. The governor of the Russian Ryazan region announced that a fire had broken out in a refinery following a drone attack. This coincided with the publication of Zelensky's interview with the Financial Times, in which he concluded his country's commitment to suspend the strikes. But the extent of the damage and its impact on production were not immediately clear, according to Reuters.
The experience of the past few days revealed a problem that goes beyond the collapse of the truce itself, from the absence of a declared and binding understanding that defines the scope of stopping attacks, the mechanism for monitoring it and the consequences of violating it. Kiev confirmed that it had suspended its strikes in response to Trump's truce, but Moscow continued to attack Ukrainian electricity facilities.
According to accounts reported by American newspapers, a Russian strike hit a power station in Kharkiv shortly after Trump’s announcement, and then came other waves that targeted energy facilities, putting Zelensky facing an increasing political and military cost: a commitment to restraint, while Ukrainian cities are being bombed, and the country is entering the cold season with a dilapidated electricity network.
Therefore, the resumption of strikes on refineries appears to be an attempt to restore balance in deterrence, and a message to Washington that the calm cannot remain unilateral. But this does not necessarily close the door to negotiation, but rather raises the conditions for returning to it. Any new truce will need verifiable commitments and guarantees that the suspension of Ukrainian attacks will be matched by an actual Russian cessation, rather than being satisfied with an American political declaration.
Behind the tension between Trump and Zelensky is a fundamental difference in defining priorities, according to the Wall Street Journal. Kiev views Russian refineries as a source of war revenues and supplies, and sees striking them as a way to compensate for the imbalance of power. As for Trump, he views the rise in fuel prices as a burden on the American consumer, and an electoral threat to Republicans before the midterm elections on November 3.
The newspaper quotes analysts that the Ukrainian drone campaign disrupted between 40 and 50 percent of the Russian refining network, and these estimates do not mean that this percentage was permanently destroyed. However, the energy disruption caused by the Iran war remains a major factor in rising prices, making Kiev responsible for the diesel crisis an abridgement of broader causes.
The Trump administration says that purchasing Russian diesel and easing sanctions on it serve two goals: increasing supplies and encouraging the Russian president to return to negotiations. But Ukraine and a number of its allies believe that providing an economic benefit before extracting a Russian commitment gives Moscow additional resources without a clear return. The dilemma here is that Washington wants to protect energy flows to reduce prices, while Kiev wants to reduce them to raise the cost of the war on Russia. If these conflicting interests are not resolved, every attack or exemption from sanctions may turn into a new reason for political clash between them.
Added reported limitations to the StarShield service; The military version of the “Starlink” system brings a more serious dimension to the dispute. According to Ukrainian officials, communications of devices operating on high-speed frequencies were halted, affecting the operation of attack and interception drones and other systems. Elon Musk explained that the US government does not control the use of “Starshield,” but he did not confirm the issuance of a presidential decision targeting Ukraine. However, he declared that it was time to change the Ukrainian leadership, echoing Trump's comments about Zelensky. The Washington Post also quoted a source in the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense that the reason for the restrictions, whether a political change or a technical obstacle, was still being verified.
The same caution applies to the exchange of intelligence information, after Zelensky announced that his country had not received early warnings about some ballistic strikes, in addition to Ukrainian and European statements about American threats to stop support. On the other hand, Washington denies reducing the exchange of information or directing these threats, and the Ukrainian side confirmed the arrival of warnings in subsequent waves.
This inconsistency does not prove a comprehensive cut in aid, but it reveals the erosion of trust to the point of interpreting breakdowns as political pressure. Even if communications are fully restored, Kiev will remain critically dependent on services whose terms of use can be controlled by a third party.
On the ground, the air war continues at a high pace. On Thursday, the Associated Press reported that 3 people were killed and 6 were injured in a Russian drone attack on the Kirovohrad region, which lasted more than 6 hours. This was preceded by a missile and drone bombardment that hit Ukrainian energy facilities, leaving about 600,000 people without electricity. These developments make it clear that the diplomatic dispute is taking place while daily pressures on Ukrainian defenses and infrastructure are increasing.
Russian jet drones add a technical and financial challenge to Kyiv. According to an investigation in the New York Times, Ukrainian companies are racing to develop faster interception drones equipped with guidance based on artificial intelligence, after new Russian models became faster than many current interception means. Relying on expensive air missiles to shoot down much cheaper targets exacerbates attrition, especially if combined with communications disruption.
Therefore, analysts expect that in the next stage, Kiev will seek to continue striking the refineries and strengthen European support, while avoiding a complete break with Washington. But Europe, despite its political support, cannot quickly replace all American capabilities, and its positions are not unified regarding targeting oil facilities.
In Washington, Republican objection may limit the space for escalation against Zelensky; Representative Brian Fitzpatrick threatened to use funding powers if it was proven that the administration imposed restrictions that harm Ukraine. The path remains open between a more specific and guaranteed truce, or continued attrition in which Moscow uses electricity to pressure Ukrainian society, and Kiev uses refineries to increase the cost of the war. What will determine the direction is the extent to which Trump is willing to tie the economic benefits to Russia to measurable concessions, rather than simply pledging to return to negotiation, as some hope.
US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that the Pentagon would not broadcast live the execution by firing squad of Nidal Malik Hassan, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood military base attack, after the announcement of this step sparked criticism from both the Republican and Democratic parties, and following Vice President J.D. Vance’s statement that he would not watch the execution.
Trump said, in a post on social media, that broadcasting the execution publicly “would have been a strong deterrent for the world to see how America deals with terrorists and scum like Hassan.” But he added, "Many good and well-intentioned people would prefer not to watch his death, whether via live broadcast or any other visual means."
The Ministry of War had announced that Hassan's execution was scheduled for December 3. Trump explained that direct family members of the victims could personally attend the execution of the sentence “if they wish.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's announcement, at the beginning of this month, that Hassan's execution would be public, and the Pentagon's later confirmation that it would be broadcast live, sparked a wide wave of criticism among Republicans and Democrats alike, as many warned of the possibility of exploiting the execution scenes to fuel extremism.
When Vance was asked, earlier this month, about the extent to which public execution was compatible with his Christian faith, he replied: “I don’t know if that will actually happen.” He added: “Regardless of the controversy surrounding the method of execution, I hope that people will not forget that this man brutally killed a large number of innocent people,” as reported by the Associated Press. But he added, "However, if the execution is eventually broadcast live, I will not watch it."
Hassan, a psychiatrist in the US Army with the rank of major, entered a medical building at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, while soldiers were queuing in long lines to receive vaccines and obtain the necessary medical approvals for their deployment abroad.
He opened fire using a pistol equipped with a laser sight. He also shot soldiers who were fleeing towards the parking lot in the back.
Hassan said that his goal in the attack was “to prevent soldiers from heading to Afghanistan and killing Muslims of his religion.” However, a military judge prevented him from relying on this motive in his defense during his trial in 2013.
Hassan was paralyzed in the lower part of his body after a law enforcement officer shot him in the back, and he currently uses a wheelchair. Hassan can seek to postpone the implementation of the death sentence for a long period, although his behavior during the trial suggests that he may not want to do so, according to the Associated Press.
The wave of departures of female officials from the administration of US President Donald Trump in his second term raised questions about equal treatment between women and men, after 4 out of 8 female officials who held cabinet-level positions left within just 3 months, while a number of male officials remained in their positions despite being subjected to criticism and accusations that sparked widespread controversy.
According to the American newspaper "The New York Times", the latest episode of this process came with Kimberly Guilfoyle, the US ambassador to Greece, being forced to resign, after the publication of a press report stating that Guilfoyle asked one of Trump's donors to pay a credit card bill worth $100,000, prior to her confirmation session, and promised him in return to provide access to officials in the administration.
Guilfoyle denied the accusations, and Trump said he did not like what he read about her, although he confirmed that she was doing a good job. He also downplayed any substantive relationship with Guilfoyle, who is one of his staunchest defenders and was at one time engaged to his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.
The past three months have witnessed the departure of four prominent female officials: Attorney General Pam Bondi, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez Derimer, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The departures came for various reasons, while men took over the positions vacated by female officials.
Bondi's departure is due to criticism related to the management of Jeffrey Epstein's files, and Trump's failure to meet Trump's demands regarding the prosecution of his opponents, in addition to his dissatisfaction with her performance during Congressional sessions and her media appearances.
As for Noem, her dismissal came after she testified before Congress regarding government advertisements worth millions of dollars in which she appeared prominently. She said that Trump approved the spending, while the president denied this.
Gabbard announced her resignation to care for her sick husband, but the move came amid tension in her relationship with the White House, after she refused to confirm that Iran posed an imminent threat, which Trump relied on to justify the war against it. The president said she was “less strict” than him on the issue.
In contrast, Chavez-Dermer left her position amid accusations of dysfunction and a toxic work environment within her department, along with allegations of abuse of power, an inappropriate relationship with an employee, and the use of public funds for personal purposes.
While female officials left their positions, male officials faced multiple criticisms and accusations. FBI Director Kash Patel faced questions about allegations of excessive alcohol consumption, allocating an armed intervention team to protect his girlfriend, and using a government plane for personal purposes, all of which he denied.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was also named in files published by the Department of Justice, as one of the visitors to the private island owned by Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was also criticized after revealing secret military plans in a conversation via a private messaging application, to which journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, was mistakenly added.
Trump punished his former national security adviser, Mike Waltz, for adding the journalist to the conversation, but appointed him as ambassador to the United Nations, a position he had promised Elise Stefanik, his Republican ally in Congress. Stefanik ended up moving away from the political scene before resigning from Congress.
According to the New York Times report, this discrepancy sparked criticism from a number of Democrats, who considered that women face impeachment decisions more quickly than men when crises or accusations arise.
Democratic Representative from New York State, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, asked after the departure of Bondi and Noem, in response to a question from a journalist about who the president should fire next: “Has he run out of women?” “It seems that Trump’s ability is limited only to firing female ministers.”
Democratic Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, often targeted by the president for his sarcasm, wrote in a social media post that Hegseth should be next on the list to depart. “I notice a pattern,” she commented. “He gets rid of incompetent women much more quickly than he gets rid of incompetent men.”
During a congressional session in April, Representative Madeleine Dean confronted Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick about what she described as a “double standard,” in light of his past relationship with Epstein. I asked him if the president was concerned about his relationship with Epstein, and Lutnick responded that he would not discuss his conversations with the president.
Dean added that Trump fired 3 ministers, all of them women, adding that if he really cared about holding those involved in helping Epstein accountable, he would have fired Lutnick as well.
For her part, Katherine den Tenpas, a non-resident researcher at the Brookings Institution who specializes in tracking diversity within presidential administrations since the era of Ronald Reagan, described what happened as unusual, saying: “I have never seen a situation in which all the first departures from the Cabinet were of one gender, that is, women.”
On the other hand, the White House defended Trump's appointments policy, stressing that the president chose members of his administration based on their ability to achieve results for the American people.
White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said that Trump “formed the greatest administration in history, choosing every member of his distinguished team based on only one criterion: his ability to deliver for the American people.”
She added: “Unlike Democrats obsessed with identity politics, the president evaluates individuals based on merit and qualifications, not on fixed, unchanging characteristics.”
Trump announced, during a celebration of “Women’s History Month” last year, that he was happy to have more women in his government than any previous Republican administration. But the number of women remaining in cabinet-level positions later decreased to four.
However, May Millman, director of the Independent Women's Law Center and a former White House official during the Trump administrations, rejected the departure of female officials as evidence of the marginalization of women. She noted the continuation of women in leadership positions, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Erica Schwartz, who was confirmed to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.
Melman said: “There is no isolation of conservative women in the Trump administration, but rather there is empowerment,” stressing that women are “a necessary member of the team because of their competence, not because of their gender.”
