Strikes on Engels oil depot, Trump's unexpected remarks, and last "Ramstein" under Biden. Serhiy Zgurets' column

Strike on the oil depot in Engels

Ukraine’s Defense Forces hit the Kristal petroleum storage base in Engels, Saratov region, Russia. Multiple reports, along with clear video evidence, indicate over fifty explosions at this key facility. A massive fire continues to burn at the depot, spreading to nearby storage areas.

Ukraine's General Staff confirmed that the strike was carried out by the Main Intelligence Directorate and Unmanned Systems Forces. The depot supplied fuel to the Engels-2 military airfield, home to strategic bombers like the Tu-95 and Tu-160 that attack Ukraine. This airfield is located about 700 kilometers from the nearest Ukrainian-controlled territory, making it clear the strike was executed using long-range drones.

The Kristal oil depot is significant because it stored fuel for these bombers. While the Tu-95 uses standard fuel, the Tu-160 requires a unique type of fuel produced specifically for it. If this specialized fuel supply is destroyed, Russia's ability to deploy Tu-160 bombers will be severely impacted. Although the Tu-160 is used less frequently than the Tu-95, regular strikes on the Engels-2 base, starting in 2022, underscore its strategic importance. These strikes also restrict Russia's capacity to use Tu-95 bombers for launching Kh-101 cruise missiles.

Meeting in the Ramstein format

Right now, what matters most strategically isn’t so much the Russian bombers but Ukraine's collaboration with key partners — particularly the United States and European members of NATO. On January 9, the 25th Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting will take place at Ramstein Air Base.

This meeting was originally planned for October 12 last year, with President Joe Biden expected to attend. At that time, Ukraine intended to present its Victory Plan, which included discussions on security guarantees, such as an invitation to NATO and the deployment of a non-nuclear deterrent arsenal in Ukraine. This meant positioning certain missiles capable of deterring Russia if hostilities escalated again.

However, that meeting didn’t happen. Now, this 25th meeting, an anniversary of sorts, will still address strategic issues, but with a slightly different focus. The agenda includes discussions about further systemic support for Ukraine, specifically the transfer of weapons, equipment, and ammunition.

This aid will support Ukraine’s preparation of reserves and battlefield operations. The meeting will also bring together representatives of countries in the Ramstein format to review eight key areas: armored vehicles, aviation, cybersecurity, maritime security, unmanned systems, and more. These eight coalitions will explore how to build systems that will provide Ukraine with these resources through 2027. Essentially, this is strategic planning within the Ramstein framework.

It’s also worth noting this could be the last meeting in this format. Moving forward, a NATO command established during the last Alliance summit will take over coordination of aid and training for Ukrainian forces. This NATO structure will handle these tasks as part of its new mandate.

While the Ramstein format relied heavily on voluntary efforts, mostly led by the U.S., the focus is now shifting to NATO. NATO has made a political commitment — decided at the summit — that aid to Ukraine from Alliance members should reach at least €40 billion annually. This responsibility is now shared among all NATO members.

That said, in my view, the Ramstein format may still continue in some capacity. We’ll see how collaboration evolves. In any case, this meeting is crucial. The U.S. is also expected to announce a military aid package for Ukraine worth over $1 billion. This will help ensure full use of the funds allocated for U.S. assistance. Some of this funding may remain unspent, with its future likely decided by the next U.S. administration.

Trump's press conference

The newly elected President of the United States held a press conference that sparked a range of statements, expectations, and interpretations from experts. Specifically, President Donald Trump mentioned during the event his intention for the United States to take control of Greenland and the Panama Canal. He also did not rule out the possibility of achieving this through military means.

Trump further stated that economic force would need to be applied in relations with Canada. This comment led to numerous expert assessments and scenarios attempting to decipher what exactly Trump might have meant.

Continuing with Trump’s unexpected remarks, which touched on the Panama Canal, Canada, and Denmark, the situation appears to present certain territorial claims against these countries. It leaves an impression that the world might be entering a new phase of geopolitical shifts in response to these statements.

Oleksiy Yizhak, an analyst at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and co-founder of the Defense Information Consortium, which brings together Ukraine's analytical structures, shared his opinion on Trump's remarks.

"So far, this seems like a political project. It's hard to determine who exactly is driving it. The signals suggest that the United States is rethinking its role in the global system, particularly regarding the world order. But pinpointing the source of ideas about Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal is difficult. In a way, it resembles a return to the Monroe Doctrine, as if Donald Trump aims to restore the United States' stance of focusing solely on the Americas. The message seems to be that the U.S. will handle what happens in North and South America and the rest of the continent, and others should stay out of it. Similarly, the U.S. will disengage from events beyond its borders. Let me remind you, Greenland is geographically part of North America but under Denmark’s jurisdiction. Something like that seems to be taking shape, but identifying its origins is challenging," Yizhak explained.

The analyst noted that, for now, only hypotheses exist about Trump’s meaning, but in general this does not bode well for global politics.

"At this point, it’s all speculation, but it isn’t good for world politics. With China and Russia already challenging the existing world order, it now looks like the United States might be ready to validate this trend with its own actions, whether through territorial changes, establishing spheres of influence, or dividing the world into zones of control. That said, there’s another possibility. There’s limited information, but it’s conceivable that a particular faction, possibly the political right wing of Silicon Valley, which aligned with Trump and represents a dynamic techno-political force, could be behind these ideas. They might be looking at Greenland or regions tied to conflicts with China," he suggested.

Yizhak also speculated that these territories might hold vital resources for the emerging economy.

"The U.S. is shaping a new economy, and the changes could be profound. A new economy requires vast amounts of electricity and materials previously considered less critical. For instance, Ukraine has significant reserves of rare earth elements. Perhaps this is part of the equation. Overall, it seems the United States is moving toward revising the global order. There’s a chance, as with Trump’s talk of achieving peace in Ukraine in a single day, that these territorial discussions will eventually take on a more civilized tone and their true meaning will become clearer. Right now, though, this approach feels both dangerous and extravagant," the analyst concluded.

"Trump can influence events, but not dictate"

Trump recently commented on the war between Russia and Ukraine, offering what many would consider strange assessments. He claimed that we need to consider Ukraine's perspective on allegations that Joe Biden violated an agreement to block Ukraine from joining NATO, implying that some of Russia’s actions could somehow be justified.

Oleksiy Yizhak shared his thoughts on whether the Trump administration has a strategy to end the Russian-Ukrainian war.

"Unfortunately, there is a plan, and there are tools to pressure Ukraine. The United States could block a significant portion of international aid — not just American aid — but create conditions that would make survival difficult for Ukraine and reduce its chances. On the other hand, the U.S. cannot afford such a defeat. It would be an even greater international loss for the U.S. than Vietnam or Afghanistan. So, while they could apply pressure, they can’t go too far. At the same time, there’s no concrete plan to stop Russia. Trump's so-called vision for ending the war lacks substance, it’s just a risky idea. His influence isn’t strong enough to dictate outcomes. He can influence events, but dictate? No," the expert said.

Meanwhile, retired General Keith Kellogg, the special representative for resolving the war in Ukraine, postponed his planned trip to Kyiv until after Donald Trump’s inauguration.

"The Kellogg trip isn’t just a postponement — it’s the cancellation of a study visit that was supposed to happen before the inauguration. It was meant to assess the situation and figure out next steps. There’s talk of a new trip after the inauguration, but no specifics. Trump has claimed he hopes to address the war within six months. This suggests there’s no concrete plan yet — just a need to evaluate different aspects and study the situation. Remember, after the election, there was talk of stopping the war immediately, then during the spring quarter. Now, Trump himself is saying six months. Interestingly, this timeline aligns with forecasts from The Economist, predicting that by mid-2025, Russia will have exhausted its stock of Soviet-era reserves currently being used in the war. Similarly, the IMF suggests mid-2025 could mark a turning point for Russia’s economy. So, Trump’s team clearly doesn’t have a specific plan to end the war now," Yizhak noted.

Oleksiy Yizhak also reviewed predictions from think tanks and major media about the state of Ukraine in 2025.

"Unfortunately, there are no clear expectations about when or how this war might end. What we can say for sure is that Ukraine will continue to receive guaranteed Western support — unless Trump makes a drastic policy shift, which seems unlikely. NATO countries have pledged over $40 billion specifically for war efforts, and this support is secured. At the current intensity of the conflict, Ukraine has guaranteed aid for at least a year," the analyst concluded.

According to him, there’s an unknown factor when it comes to how long Russia can sustain its current pace of war.

"That’s where the real discussion starts. It could be mid-2025 when Russia runs out of options to continue the war as it is now, or maybe even by the end of this year. Some estimates suggest it could stretch on like this until 2027. This remains an unknown factor. But by the end of last year, it was clear no one believed peace could come through words alone, through diplomacy alone. Decisive action is required. The question isn’t whether it’s possible, but rather how to refine the methods for achieving it."

"Essentially, it’s clear Russia will only come to the negotiating table if its advances are stopped — either by Ukrainian offensives or by actions from the West that make it impossible for Russia to access the resources needed to wage war. But that comes with risks. Overall, the next year doesn’t promise an end to the war. The best-case scenario for peace is what’s called a 'semi-frozen conflict,' where the intensity of hostilities decreases, but the war itself doesn’t truly end.

At the same time, global attention is shifting toward what’s happening in the United States. This is key — there’s a real possibility of a broad policy shift by the U.S. government. This has caught many by surprise, and the world will need to adapt," the analyst said.

Part of our program covered the meeting in Ramstein, which I believe marks a transition to a new approach in coordinating military and technical aid for Ukraine. Oleksiy Yizhak raised the question of whether there are signs that European countries may start playing a larger role than before.

"Honestly, I think that’s the focus of the meeting. While the Ramstein group formally remains, the technical aspects — coordination of aid and troop training — are shifting to the new NATO command in Wiesbaden. That’s also where the medium-range missile command will be based. Still, the Ramstein group won’t be dissolved. It’s a highly practical location — secure, large, and capable of hosting major international delegations. So, it will likely remain as a political forum.

This meeting, as far as I understand, is the 25th and the last under Joe Biden’s presidency. And with Donald Trump potentially returning to power, the group’s political future will likely be a key topic. Meanwhile, we’re seeing changes across the board — in Canada, Germany, Austria, Poland, and other key allied countries. Elections are coming up, and shifts in leadership are inevitable, including in Japan and Canada," he said.

The analyst noted that the Ramstein meeting will reaffirm ongoing support for allies and confirm the validity of prior commitments.

"Political guarantees are essential at this point. I believe the group meeting tomorrow will confirm that everyone remains on board. Regardless of political changes, member countries of the Ramstein group will honor their commitments. Politically, this is the most important aspect right now. The U.S., in particular, must ensure that previously signed contracts — like those involving Patriot systems and other critical weapons for Ukraine — are fulfilled within the next year. Some contracts are even funded for two years ahead," Oleksiy Yizhak added.