Winter is Coming: How Energy and Economics Will Impact Negotiations in Ukraine

This series—led by the Futures Lab and featuring scholars across CSIS—explores emerging challenges and opportunities likely to shape peace negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. All contributions in the series can be found by visiting Strategic Headwinds: Understanding the Forces Shaping Ukraine’s Path to Peace.

The climate surrounding any negotiation in Ukraine will be chilly at best, marked by concerns about energy prices, economic growth in Europe, and shifting public opinion on the continent. This confluence of economic and political factors will make it difficult, albeit not impossible to support Ukraine’s desire to take back its territory and hold the Kremlin accountable. As a result, the incoming Trump administration should increase energy exports and pause any tariffs on European partners during the negotiation process. When combined with military strategy to bolster Ukrainian forces defending along the frontline, these measures ensure that Kyiv will have a stronger hand at the negotiating table.

How Energy and Economics Shape Support for Negotiations in Europe

There is a confluence of economic and political factors that could change European support for Kyiv during any negotiation. Energy costs are rising in Europe while the prospect of price volatility linked to conflicts in the Middle East remains high. Uncertainty could produce domestic pressure, especially in Germany, which heads to the ballot box in February. Rising energy costs could also tip broad-based economic stagnation, defined by low GDP growth, into a recession. Even absent a recession, rising costs amidst sluggish growth could increase domestic pressure to end the war and avoid costly military buildups in multiple European states.

Historically, January—the earliest any formal negotiation might start—is the coldest month in Europe. This winter there are also concerns that a La Niña weather pattern could bring colder temperatures to Western Europe and increase the chance of an extreme weather event.

As a result, there is the possibility that a sudden surge in energy demand could further amplify domestic pressure in Europe at the worst possible time. Over the fall, there has been a statistically significant decline in confidence in the Ukrainian leadership and rising concerns about the level of aid countries are providing to Kyiv. These concerns are particularly strong in right-wing populist parties gaining traction across the continent. The combination of shifting public opinion, cold weather, energy price volatility, and sluggish economic growth will create an environment where European leaders are less likely to pressure Moscow to accept more hardline Ukrainian demands at the negotiating table.

How Russia’s Attacks on Energy Infrastructure in Ukraine Compound the Problem

The economics and politics of energy are also key features of the war in Ukraine. Russia has waged a systematic campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure over the last two years. Moscow is increasing, not decreasing, its use of firepower strikes as a form of countervalue targeting. By punishing the population, the Kremlin seeks to compel Ukrainian leaders to end the war quickly and on terms favorable to Russia.

The reality of large-scale blackouts during what could be an unseasonably cold winter will put pressure on Ukrainian leaders. Recent surveys suggest half of Ukrainians want a quick, negotiated end to the war. The population is increasingly pessimistic about the long-term prospects for the country indicative of a mix of war fatigue and the prospect of a frozen conflict similar to 2014–2022. For most, negotiation is a pause more than an end to the war. This reality will almost certainly weigh on Ukrainian leaders as they start negotiations.

Supporting Ukraine in Negotiations Will Require More than Military Aid

Most wars end with some form of negotiation putting a premium on external military support as the combatants seek to turn battlefield gains into bargaining power. In addition to this military logic, diplomatic measures that consolidate support are critical. This is especially true when the majority of states supporting Kyiv are democratic and responsive to domestic concerns about economic growth.

As a result, U.S. energy and trade policy towards Europe has a critical, indirect role in setting conditions for any negotiation to end the war in Ukraine. First, the politics of energy exports and diplomatic negotiations are related. The United States can drop some Biden-era energy policies to influence market prices, especially for liquified natural gas. Even if these measures don’t immediately impact prices, they send a signal to markets and European leaders that the United States will be a stable source of energy going forward.

Second, if not carefully enacted tariffs could undermine efforts to ensure Ukraine negotiates from a position of strength. While the Trump administration explores using large-scale tariffs, it should consider how these measures could further weigh on European growth and undermine the transatlantic relationship. Yes, the United States deserves fair trade deals, but the world also needs an end to the war in Ukraine that doesn’t encourage other authoritarian states—especially China—to launch gambles to annex territory. The Trump team must strategically sequence new trade policy and multilateral efforts to support negotiations.

Even without external pressure, the war in Ukraine was likely headed towards an end in the next nine months. Ukraine is struggling to mobilize enough troops, and the Russian economy is finally on the edge of collapse. But how the war ends and what it says about the free world have yet to be decided.

Benjamin Jensen is a senior fellow in the Futures Lab at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.