A turning point in the winter of 2026: experts say we must prepare now for three potential war scenarios

On October 11, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the start of an "energy truce" but did not specify its terms or duration. Ukraine supported the idea, while Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, stated that Moscow rejects a 60-day truce that Ukrainians could use to hold elections. *Focus* gathered expert opinions analyzing various scenarios for how events might unfold in the coming months.

During the Warsaw Security Forum on October 12, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine would not attack Russia unless Russia attacked Ukraine. At the same time, the head of state noted that following Trump's remarks about a pause in shelling, the Russians attacked oil processing facilities, having previously targeted the power grid for several consecutive days. Meanwhile, the White House issued an ultimatum to Kyiv demanding a halt to attacks on Russian refineries, using intelligence data and the suspension of arms sales under the PURL program as leverage. What future awaits Ukrainians, depending on the political "cards" held by Ukraine, the U.S., and the Russian Federation?

Scenarios for Russia's war against Ukraine: what are the options?

Experts have outlined three main scenarios for Russia's war against Ukraine that could play out during the upcoming winter of 2026–2027. Escalation – What Actions Will Trump and Putin Take?

Expert Volodymyr Fesenko described the US decision regarding Russian diesel as a "separate agreement" that would benefit Russian President Vladimir Putin. In his assessment, the Russian president is "playing a multi-step game" by factoring in Trump's resentment. Furthermore, Ukraine needs to rein in its emotions and attempt to reshape its relationship with the US. The Russians anticipate that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will continue striking Russian refineries, which will then trigger accusations intended to be "presented to Trump."

"Unfortunately, there will be no genuine peace negotiations in the near future—certainly not for at least six months. At the very least, US mediation has now been devalued, but the main risk lies elsewhere. This multi-layered strategy by the Kremlin has one primary goal: to put us in a bad light before Trump," Fesenko explained.

The war is not expected to end within the next six months; instead, an escalation is likely, Fesenko noted. Given the issues with the US, securing assistance from European partners will be crucial.

"The situation regarding peace negotiations is more complex. Unfortunately, I do not expect them to happen in the next six months; while Russia has made a notable proposal, it will not stop the war. On the contrary, the escalation of the war against Ukraine will continue. Here, we must now adopt a fully unified approach with our European partners regarding how to survive this winter. This applies to both weaponry and financial support," Fesenko stated.

Energy expert Stanislav Ignatiev also discussed a specific aspect of the escalation on the "Superposition" YouTube channel. Ignatiev noted a new tactic employed by the Russian Federation: concentrating strikes on Kyiv's power grid without pause, which hinders repair efforts.

"The enemy has either destroyed or severely damaged all electricity generation facilities in the capital. Russian armed forces prevent repairs by triggering constant air raid alerts; safety regulations prohibit repair work while an alert is active," Ignatiev explained.

Meanwhile, an interview with Serhiy Horkutenko, Deputy Director General of Kyivvodokanal, was published on September 12; he explained that the capital's water supply and sewage systems cease to function when there is no electricity. According to Horkutenko, the situation will likely mirror that of February–April 2022, when "water supplies were cut by half." "Kyivodokanal" will have to choose where to direct its electricity supply: to the water system (since delivery can be organized) or to the sewage system.

"If there is no sewage service, an epidemiological disaster will ensue within three days, because people will not stop using the drains. The higher the floor, the easier the situation, but the ground floors will face serious problems. Therefore, the priority is to do everything possible to keep the sewage system operational," said Horkutenko.

Military-political analyst Oleksandr Kovalenko discussed another potential avenue for escalation. On his Facebook page, Kovalenko warned of a high probability of attacks on NATO countries. He cited a series of incidents in Europe involving Russians, mentioned the CIA Director's visit to Moscow, and noted the buildup of Russian military forces. According to Kovalenko, Estonia faces the greatest threat of invasion. At the same time, Europe recognizes the threat of escalation and has begun preparations, the report states.

Capitulation – Is it possible to pressure Ukraine and the Russian Federation?

The issue of negotiations and the threat of surrender came to the fore in early October, when MP Oleksiy Honcharenko—who was subsequently expelled from the European Solidarity party—proposed the idea of ​​negotiations. Honcharenko argued that it would be worth initiating peace talks with the Russian Federation to halt the war. According to the politician, if the Kremlin's demands were met, Putin would stop the massive shelling, unblock the Black Sea, and cease fire in the Donbas. This MP's stance was supported by his parliamentary colleague Danylo Hetmantsev (an MP from the Servant of the People party), Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov, and other politicians.

In response to Honcharenko's idea, a range of online comments emerged—some critical, others cautiously supportive. For instance, Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Head of the Office of the President Iryna Vereshchuk stated that "there will be no peace," as the Russian Federation seeks to destroy Ukraine. Historian Volodymyr Viatrovych argued that negotiations and acceding to the Russian Federation's peace terms amount to capitulation. Meanwhile, expert Ignatyev suggested that it is worth listening to the views of people living in frontline areas and soldiers who have spent five years in the trenches.

Former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba assessed the likelihood of Ukraine being forced to surrender due to pressure from Trump and Putin's refusal to end the war. In the *Oboz* YouTube podcast, Kuleba stated that the chances of either forcing the Ukrainians to surrender or compelling the Russians to enter peace negotiations are slim. The reasons these scenarios are unfeasible are that the Kremlin will not meet any of the conditions Trump might include in a "peace agreement," and Putin will 100 percent continue the war as long as he remains in power. On the other hand, the US lacks the tools to exert pressure on the Ukrainians [Kuleba's assessment was made prior to US threats regarding intelligence and weaponry – Ed. note].

"There is no leverage for two reasons. The first reason is Ukraine's internal resilience and capability. That is, we have the ability to fight on the battlefield and strike targets within Russia. The second reason is our unity with Europe, as Europe acts as an infusion that detoxifies and nourishes the Ukrainian organism," Kuleba said.

A war of attrition – what are Ukraine's tactics, and is an "energy truce" necessary?

In his analysis of the situation on October 7, military expert Oleg Zhdanov described the unfolding war of attrition. On the front line, Russian armed forces are launching attacks—disregarding losses in personnel and equipment—in an attempt to dislodge Ukrainian forces from their positions. Meanwhile, Ukrainian defense forces are regularly striking logistics, fuel depots, and ammunition stores behind the Russian front lines. Roman Svitan, a reserve colonel in the Ukrainian Armed Forces and a military expert, outlined the tactics Ukraine should pursue in this war of attrition. According to Svitan, it is essential to continue striking oil refineries and oil pumping stations (LPDS), as this disrupts oil storage and transport. By doing so, Ukraine would inflict serious damage on the Russian economy and undermine Russia's financial capacity to sustain the war. At the same time, Russia would incur financial losses due to issues with oil wells and burning oil storage tanks. Svitan emphasized that agreeing to an "energy truce" is out of the question, as it would benefit Russia; instead, strikes on refineries must be continued systematically. "Halting the strikes on the Russian oil industry would at least reset the clock on the three-to-four-year process of destroying Russia's oil and gas sector—a process that began last August. That means we would be buying back a year and a half—time representing the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers' lives that would otherwise be lost during that additional period," said Svitan.

It is worth noting that *Focus* previously reported on war scenarios involving the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as outlined by *The Telegraph* analysts looking ahead to 2026. Anticipating new winter and summer offensives by Moscow, analysts explained that the priority for Ukraine was maintaining control over Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson, and Dnipro. The report presented two scenarios: the first involved holding front-line positions with the support of Great Britain and other Western partners, while the second envisioned a "fragile peace" that Putin could shatter at any moment.

It is also worth recalling that in October, NATO commander in Europe Alexus Grynkewich prepared a plan titled "Theory of Victory," designed to halt the Russian Federation in the event of an attack on an alliance member state.