There is one condition for an economic collapse: Amelin's interview about a devastating blow to Russia, Trump's hidden interests, and the negotiations in Abu Dhabi

Attacks by Ukrainian drones on Russian oil refineries are taking an increasingly heavy toll on Russia’s economy. Moscow continues to talk about negotiations, while Donald Trump’s team is considering business opportunities with the aggressor country.

Anatoliy Amelin, executive director and co-founder of the “Ukrainian Institute of the Future,” explained in an exclusive interview with 24 Channel under what conditions the Russian economy faces collapse, whether an energy truce is possible, and what Putin is actually counting on. The expert also assessed the risks for Europe and explained why Ukraine needs to prepare to rely primarily on its own resources.

Why is Ukraine targeting Russian oil refineries, and when will this become critical for Russia’s economy?

Ukraine continues to strike Russia’s largest oil refineries, leading to fuel rationing in some regions. What consequences will these strikes have for Russia’s economy, and what might they lead to? Is such pressure capable of forcing Putin to end the war?

I wouldn’t start by saying that Ukraine is striking Russian oil refineries, but rather by explaining why we’re doing it. We understand that the war has reached a stalemate and that Russia has almost no prospects for significant advances. They understand this as well.

Russia has changed its tactics and begun striking our civilian infrastructure and economy. In other words, it wants to destroy the Ukrainian economy so that we cannot finance our own army.

What can Ukraine do in this situation? The same thing – strike at Russia’s weakest points. I’d like to remind you: in 2020, the Ukrainian Institute for the Future published a major report titled “Russia’s Limits of Resilience.” In it, we demonstrated that the oil sector is Russia’s greatest vulnerability.

At the time, we proposed that partner countries support an embargo on Russian oil exports to other nations. But no one backed that proposal.

We see that even today, it is oil and the sanctions imposed by the Ukrainian military that are the most effective. Therefore, the destruction of Russian oil refineries and critical infrastructure is a tool for defense and for weakening Russia’s ability to finance the war.

Let me remind you that the oil sector – and I’m referring not so much to oil refining as to oil exports – previously accounted for about 30% of Russia’s budget revenue. Russia’s budget deficit is growing, and its structural problems and economic imbalances are deepening. Strikes against oil refineries also have consequences for the Russian economy.

Logistics are deteriorating, and logistics costs are rising. Winter is approaching, when the demand for kerosene increases, particularly for blending with diesel.

We understand that these petroleum products are used to fuel military equipment fighting against Ukraine – aircraft, heavy machinery, and so on. Therefore, for us, this is a defensive measure.

What’s next? According to our institute’s calculations, the collapse of the Russian economy will begin once we destroy 60% of its oil refining capacity. We haven’t reached that figure yet. We need to pick up the pace a bit, but this is a very sensitive issue.

Full interview with Amelin: watch the video

negotiations in Saudi Arabia will take place. I expect that the issue of an energy ceasefire may also become part of the negotiation process. At the same time, Russia continued to attack our energy infrastructure, despite the so-called energy ceasefire announced by Trump.

Ukraine has adhered to the agreements and has indeed refrained from striking oil refineries. I hope that as a result of the negotiations, we will be able to reach agreements at least for the winter or until the end of this year: Russia will not attack our energy infrastructure, and we will not strike its oil refineries.

Last week, the “Samara” oil terminal, which receives oil from various regions and produces the Urals export blend, was also attacked. How damaging was this strike for Russia?

I have no confirmation that anyone approved or disapproved of this attack. Any target that enables the Russian army to continue the war is a legitimate target for us.

Our goal is to reduce Russia’s tax revenues. The country’s budget deficit is growing rapidly.

We also need to reduce oil exports, in particular by restricting the activities of the shadow fleet. This involves sanctions, restrictions, and discounts on Russian oil.

Another of our objectives is to reduce Russia’s ability to refuel its military equipment. Therefore, anything related to the oil sector – oil refining, oil transportation, and so on – is a legitimate target that helps Ukraine achieve its objectives. And our goal is peace and national security.

Could Trump, before the end of his presidential term, conclude new economic agreements with Russia, similar to the diesel deal that ultimately fell through?

He will no longer be able to do so. After November 3, following the election, when the Republicans lost control and influence over the Senate and Congress, any deal in which Trump seeks to make additional money with Russia will raise very serious questions – potentially leading to impeachment. We know that impeachment proceedings are currently underway against Hagset, the U.S. Secretary of Defense. And for Trump, the likelihood of impeachment is also not zero.

As a reminder, on November9 , Republican Congressman Thomas Massie initiated proceedings to remove accusingthe Pentagon chief for participating in the war against Iran without congressional authorization. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries also supported this initiative.

Could Putin Agree to a Deal, and What Does the New Delegation Lineup Mean?

Could Putin agree to an energy truce in the near future, or will he continue to attack Ukraine’s energy sector until December?

No one knows what’s on Putin’s mind. Moreover, it’s unclear exactly how he makes decisions, since, as they say, the information he needs is brought to him on printed slips of paper. And this isn’t objective information.

He’s given what he wants to hear. He still claims that the Russians have taken Mala Tokmachka, are advancing, and so on. We can see that his public statements do not correspond to reality.

So we don’t know exactly what Putin sees or what kind of world he lives in. But there is an objective reality that is already revealing the problems of the Russian economy. He must respond to this.

The delegation currently visiting Saudi Arabia is a high-level one. It includes the heads of the intelligence services of both countries. In my opinion, they know the situation in each country best, but they do not have the authority to make final decisions. Therefore, this will be a negotiation process.

Incidentally, the Ukrainian negotiating team, the delegation will be led by Rustem Umerov, head of the Foreign Intelligence Service. The delegation also includes the head of the Office of the President, Kirill Budanov; his first deputy, Serhiy Kyslytsia; the deputy head of the Main Intelligence Directorate, Vadym Skibitsky; the head of the “Servant of the People” parliamentary faction, Davyd Arakhamia; and an analyst from the Foreign Intelligence Service. 
The Russian delegation will be led by Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to Vladimir Putin. Other participants include Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov; Deputy Foreign Ministers Sergey Ryabkov and Mikhail Galuzin; Head of Russian Military Intelligence Igor Kostyukov; and General Staff representative Yuri Zhigalovsky.

It may be possible to reach an agreement on a prisoner exchange. This is also very important. They may also discuss an energy truce, but I’m not sure these groups have the appropriate mandate. Therefore, they will have to return to their leaders and coordinate decisions with their countries’ top leadership.

At the same time, such agreements could be on the table.

Initially, the Russian delegation consisted only of Medinsky, but it was later reinforced with representatives from the General Staff and intelligence agencies. Does this indicate that Putin is taking the negotiations more seriously?

I don’t know exactly what influenced Putin and the people who make up the delegation. But raising its status already indicates a certain interest in the negotiations and their outcomes. That’s a good sign.

It means that everything is being done not just for show, but to make some progress. The only question is – where? A few days ago, reports emerged that during events in Washington, Dmitriev had a private conversation with Trump and allegedly presented him with additional peace proposals. No one knows exactly what was discussed there.

We’ve been monitoring the public sphere; there have been a few leaks, but they can’t be considered reliable. So Trump does have some proposals. They were prepared in Moscow. We don’t know exactly what they entail, but we’ll see.

Why Trump’s team stands to benefit from doing business with Russia

Reports have appeared in Western media claiming that Witkoff and Kushner allegedly proposed that Ukraine resume the transit of Russian gas to Europe via the Ukrainian gas transmission system in exchange for an energy truce. How realistic is such a proposal?

I think such a proposal could very well have been made. We see that Kushner and Witkoff are involved in negotiations regarding the sale of Russia’s “Lukoil.” We recall the scandal in Alaska, where an energy project was announced in which “Novatek” was a partner and carried out certain technical work.

We also see the Trump team’s desire to do business with Russia and Putin. We recall the so-called “Spirit of Anchorage,” discussions about developing the Arctic shelf, and other projects. We’re talking about big money here.

We also recall proposals to jointly use $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. By “joint use,” they meant the U.S. and Russia, while Ukraine was allocated only a small portion.

So we’re talking about big money. What can Russia offer Trump, rather than the United States? Precisely big money and large-scale business. That’s how they’ve always operated.

But there is good news: the American system of governance is fairly balanced. The U.S. has courts, government institutions, and a pluralism of power and opinion. There are Democrats and Republicans, but there is no unanimity within either party.

There is also American society, which supports Ukraine. As far as I recall, about 70% of Americans support Ukraine specifically. Therefore, the interests of one person – the U.S. president – cannot be placed above the interests of all other parties. Such ideas can be discussed, but the likelihood of their implementation is very low.

There is also discussion of Kushner’s idea to revive the NATO–Russia Council format as part of negotiations to end the war. Could such a scenario be realized?

Anything is possible in theory, but we’ve already seen Europe’s reaction, which is opposed to it. And that’s it.

The NATO–Russia Council is a consultative format established in 2002 to facilitate dialogue between the Alliance and Moscow. Its activities were suspended in 2014 following Russia’s occupation of Crimea, and after the full-scale invasion began in 2022, no further meetings were held. 
According to The Washington Post, Jared Kushner offerswants to use this model for broader negotiations on Europe’s future security. At the same time, the U.S.’s European allies insist that a ceasefire in Ukraine must be achieved first, and only then should a new security architecture be discussed.

The Europeans state that they will also participate in the negotiation process, though not in the trilateral meetings. Could they advise the Ukrainian delegation on security guarantees?

Yes, they will likely be consulted.

Marco Rubio said that one of the main topics of the negotiations will be security guarantees for Ukraine. Will they also concern Europe?

As far as I recall, a few days ago Trump stated that a major agreement would soon be concluded that would affect not so much the situation in Ukraine as it would in Europe. He spoke of certain changes, so the issue of European security is also very important.

Let me remind you that NATO military analysts cite 2029 as a potential date when Russia could attack a NATO country that is a member of the European Union. They assess this risk as high.

We are seeing an increase in Russian sabotage operations in Europe. Russian drones are disrupting airport operations, and explosions are occurring at factories producing fuel, ammunition, explosives, and so on. In other words, Russia is already conducting active sabotage operations against Europe, and the issue of its security is extremely relevant today.

Could the renewal of gas contracts with Russia also be discussed during the negotiations?

Yes, they can.

Europe must completely abandon Russian gas. Even Hungary has stated that it will stop purchasing it. Is this a means of exerting pressure on Putin?

For Russia, the oil component of export revenues to the budget was the most important. Gas had significantly less economic significance, but it was a tool of political corruption for Russia. I apologize for using such terminology.

Europeans tried to sell gas on the spot market, where there are buyers, competition, and market prices. Russia, on the other hand, entered into long-term contracts not so much with countries as with individual governments. They explained to their voters that they had cheaper Russian gas, thanks to which households would pay less.

This helped secure additional political support for their partners. Therefore, gas is important to Russia not so much economically as politically.

We see that elections will be taking place in Europe over the next few years. Political changes are possible in Germany and France, and attitudes toward Ukraine are shifting in Eastern European countries. Therefore, gas remains an important tool for Russia to strengthen its influence in Europe. The Americans could contribute to this. If Ukraine agrees to resume transit, it would be like shooting ourselves in the foot.

Will Western support for Ukraine be enough, and what can we expect after the war?

Pro-Russian media often claim that Europe is growing weary of the war in Ukraine and is running out of resources to provide aid. Is European support truly waning?

Look, there’s never any extra money. But Europeans understand very well: if, God forbid, Ukraine doesn’t hold out, they’ll be next.

That’s why, for Europe, supporting Ukraine isn’t charity – it’s an investment in its own future security. Politicians understand this too – even those working for Russia, including its agents of influence.

But they promote entirely different narratives: why spend money on distant Ukraine when pensions, social benefits, and so on could be increased? It’s a classic story. Populism is always a tool for manipulation and influence. Therefore, risks for us exist and will continue to intensify from the end of 2027 and throughout 2028.

The year 2028, in particular, may become a period of great uncertainty regarding financial and other support for Ukraine from Europe.

Will Europeans continue to invest in Ukraine after a peace agreement is reached? Can we count on foreign aid?

It’s important to understand that we don’t know when peace will come or what will happen in the world and in Europe. For several years now, there has been talk of a high probability of a major economic crisis in the coming months. There are many facts pointing to this.

During a crisis, investors are reluctant to invest money or support other countries. Therefore, Ukraine’s first task is to rely primarily on its own resources, develop an anti-crisis plan, cut spending wherever possible, and create conditions to attract domestic and foreign investment.

Second point: if we create such conditions, money will come here. I’m not saying that Europe should give us anything for free. We need to create conditions that will be beneficial both for Ukraine and for the future of Europe.

Let me remind you that over a year ago, at the request of Ursula von der Leyen, a major report on Europe’s economic future was prepared. It was authored by Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank. The report identified the main problems causing Europe to lose ground to Asia and the U.S., as well as limited opportunities for increasing labor productivity.

Ukraine can help solve these problems. We are capable of increasing labor productivity and becoming an efficient manufacturing hub, much like China once was for the U.S. and Europe. Now Ukraine can play that role.

I’m not saying that we’ll be launching spacecraft or manufacturing airplanes tomorrow. But Ukraine’s technological potential is higher than that of many European countries. We must create conditions under which investing and opening manufacturing facilities in Ukraine will be profitable, safe, and fast.

We need to attract investment and create new jobs. If we succeed, money will flow in from all over the world, not just from Europe. This could include investments from Europe, the U.S., China, and other Asian countries. And there’s no need to fear this – we just need to create the right conditions for it.

But the number one task is to ask ourselves: how will we manage on our own? We must not act like children who think adults should solve our problems for us. If there are no adults, we must become them ourselves.

We must solve our own problems, overhaul the country’s governance system, adopt a new Constitution, and abandon everything that does not contribute to growth. Anything that can be cut off must be cut off so we can focus on survival and development. First, we must survive.

Let me remind you that our debts exceed our GDP. They must be repaid. We must negotiate with creditors, reach agreements, and propose terms under which they will believe that Ukraine has a chance to succeed. Other countries that no one believed in have followed this path.

Think of Singapore. At the start of its independence, it had no natural resources, no water, no technology, and no educated people. Today, however, it is considered a kind of “European Singapore.” Ukraine, on the other hand, was one of the richest countries of the former Soviet Union after gaining independence, and we didn’t have to make extraordinary efforts to earn money. Today, the situation is different.

But we have the people, the potential, and the motivation to survive. That is why we can rely first and foremost on ourselves.

What will happen to the mineral resources agreement that Ukraine signed with the U.S.? Does it have any prospects? And what might the periodic presence of the investment firm BlackRock at negotiations with Europeans signify?

I don’t know what BlackRock’s presence means. Let me remind you that the company was previously our advisor but later suspended the contract. Perhaps it has certain plans or ideas. As for the agreement with the U.S., it’s already in effect.

As far as I know, the “The first deal was made ” has either been funded or allocated $30 million. Certain processes are ongoing. I won’t criticize this agreement – it’s good that it exists. It has a certain political significance, but it guarantees us nothing.

We constantly talk about the large amount of mineral resources in Ukraine. But what does that give us? According to the Constitution, we are all co-owners of the subsoil. But do we know how much we have and what we have? Do we have any influence over how these resources are managed?

No. I would look to Norway’s example, where they established a separate fund. It receives revenue from the use of mineral resources and invests it in the country’s development. Subsurface resources, forests, water, and infrastructure should be managed not by bureaucrats, but by professionals and organizations – including those brought in through outsourcing.

When I worked in Europe, I became familiar with Scandinavian forest funds. They own only forests and generate an average return of 10–11% annually. How does this work? They know how much timber they have and how quickly it grows. They even factor rainfall into their forecasts for the growth of timber reserves – and, consequently, the value of their assets.

I want Ukrainian forests to be managed not by bureaucrats, but by professional companies. For example, Scandinavian firms could come in for a 2% annual management fee to assess our forests. Then, as a shareholder, I would understand how much my stake is worth in this fund, which includes forests, water, black soil, mineral resources, and other assets.

Only then will we be able to talk to BlackRock and other companies on equal terms. But today, we’re talking to them like natives who’ve been brought trinkets and mirrors, and they consider this a great victory. Please excuse this analogy.

Should Ukraine count on American support now that the Democrats have begun pushing for a new $15 billion aid package?

No, it shouldn’t. America is a great country with its own interests. Today we see how the Democrats are settling scores with the Republicans. They’re playing their own game, in which Ukraine isn’t the goal, but merely a tool.

So I’ll say it again: we need to rely only on ourselves, take off our rose-colored glasses, and stop waiting for someone to bail us out. We can rely only on our own strength. If someone helps, that’s a big bonus, but such help is neither a guarantee nor anyone’s obligation.

This interview has been condensed, corrected, and edited for better audience understanding.