Russia has stated its right to withdraw from the moratorium on energy strikes if Ukraine continues its attacks on Russian energy targets. The Kremlin claims that Ukraine is not adhering to the agreement and that its armed forces are not under proper control.
Putin’s remarks regarding a potential temporary administration for Ukraine reflect concerns over the strength of armed nationalist groups in the country. Currently, Russia maintains that it is upholding the moratorium, although it views the ongoing strikes from Ukraine as unsustainable.
Conflict expectations remain elevated
The situation suggests that the conflict in Ukraine will continue for the foreseeable future.
Given the statements coming out of Moscow in recent days, it appears the current cease in targeted energy attacks may not last much longer. The mention of a moratorium is important—it indicates Russia has chosen, for now, to hold back from targeting specific infrastructure, but that patience is visibly thinning. For us, that should be read not just as a military development, but also one with clear downstream effects across commodity exposure and volatility prices in the short to medium term.
The accusation that Ukrainian forces lack central authority paints a picture of decentralisation, whether accurate or not. This narrative could be a move to justify a shift in tactics, especially if Moscow decides to alter its restraint policy soon. Traders should expect this kind of framing to quickly translate into increased energy-linked instability, especially if action follows rhetoric. It’s not about the accuracy of the claim, but the possibility it is used to kick-start further aggression.
What stood out from the recent comments is Putin’s reference to installing a form of provisional rule in Ukrainian territory. That phrasing is far from casual—it signals a shift towards control-based objectives, rather than the defence narratives previously used. These changes in intention, stated openly, often precede movements on the ground. When geopolitical shifts become this explicit, derivatives tied to gas pipelines, cross-border supply, or regional electricity flows may start reacting ahead of official sanction announcements.
Market implications of shifting tone
Let’s be clear—the conflict is not winding down. The repeated suggestion that it is “unsustainable” to allow Ukrainian attacks to continue creates a pretext. That is not a subtle change in tone. Pricing models that have been banking on extended quiet may need revision. We might see intraday gaps widen, particularly if there’s announcement-driven selling or hedging into illiquid hours.
There could also be re-priced risk on the transport side. If key corridors are repurposed or disrupted by retaliatory energy action, shipping routes—especially those closer to NATO border countries—might see shifts in insurance costs and lead times. These are not theoretical risks; they tend to get priced once headlines break.
In these weeks ahead, we shouldn’t lean on false calm or lagging interpretation. Volatility compression seen in some derivatives might turn quickly. Watch options premiums—especially on short tenors tied to European natgas or oil futures—as they may absorb directional bets if traders begin anticipating a return to broad-based strikes. The more we hear about “unsustainability,” the likelier it is that the restraint policy unravels.
