Colorado's Bold Move to Ban Oil Drilling Sparks Nationwide Debate

By Felicity Bradstock - Sep 28, 2024

• Colorado lawmakers have proposed groundbreaking legislation that would ban new oil and gas drilling permits starting in 2028 and require existing wells to pause production for five months each year.
• 
  
• This bold move could inspire other states to follow suit, but faces opposition from the oil and gas industry and some lawmakers.
• 
  
• The outcome of Colorado's legislative efforts will likely have significant implications for the future of energy production and environmental policy in the United States.
• 
  

Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers in Colorado proposed two pieces of legislation aimed at introducing a statewide ban on oil and gas wells, which would be the first of its kind in the U.S. One of the bills aimed to introduce a ban on new oil and gas drilling permits by bringing an end to new oil and gas licenses starting in 2028. The second proposal would require oil and gas companies to pause production for five months each year.

The proposal of such strict limitations on oil and gas operations had not previously been seen and the proposal of such far-reaching laws could encourage other states to follow suit. Environmentalists are calling for lawmakers to bring an end to oil and gas production, with a particular focus on fracking, a technique that is widely used in Colorado. In 2019, both Oregon and Washington banned fracking, and climate activists are looking to do the same in Colorado. However, passing laws restricting oil and gas production is no easy task, with several other states with Democratic majorities, such as New Mexico, having failed to change the regulation and oversight of oil and gas production in recent years. 

Colorado is well-known for its oil and gas production. Its crude output has increased sharply in recent decades, from nearly 2.7 million barrels per month in 2010 to almost 13.5 million barrels in June of this year. Colorado is the fourth-biggest oil-producing state in the U.S., accounting for around 4 percent of the U.S. total crude oil output. The use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies has helped Colorado to massively increase its oil production in recent years. 

In 2019, the Colorado state government passed new rules that provided greater power to local governments to regulate the expansion of the oil and gas industry within their jurisdictions. The new law also obligated the oil and gas regulator, the Colorado Energy & Carbon Management Commission (ECMC), to work with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to address the “cumulative impact” of oil and gas development. This introduction of the rules responded to the rise in public pressure as the oil and gas industry expanded to more urban areas, leading to poorer air quality and widespread health issues. 

However, in August, lawmakers complained that Colorado regulators had watered down the new rules on oil and gas oversight, making 17 revisions to the document. In a letter to the ECMC, 24 legislators said, “The current draft deviates significantly from the intent of the laws we worked to pass, jeopardising the protection of disproportionately impacted communities and allowing operators broad leeway to exceed pollution thresholds.” Rep. Elizabeth Velasco stated, “The agency has prioritised industry over public health and safety.” 

Other states are also addressing concerns about the longevity of oil and gas, as the public is increasingly putting pressure on legislators to support a green transition. In New York, legislators are exploring a potential ban on the use of carbon dioxide for oil and gas recovery. Meanwhile, in 2022, California passed a law banning drilling for oil and gas within 3,200 feet of certain structures, such as homes, schools and hospitals. This drove down the number of new well licenses, although the law has not yet gone into effect. 

Vermont is leading the way on oil and gas legislation and intends to go even further this year. In 2012, it became the first U.S. state to ban the practice of fracking. The state now aims to pass a new measure to force oil and gas companies to pay for damages caused by the climate crisis. This echoes the aims of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund programme, which requires companies to pay for the clean-up of toxic waste. If passed, the new measures would charge oil and gas firms operating in Vermont billions of dollars for their past emissions.

Elena Mihaly, the vice-president of the Conservation Law Foundation’s Vermont chapter stated, “If you contributed to a mess, you should play a role in cleaning it up.” The passing of the bill will not be straightforward, and it is likely to be in the court for a long time before we hear a verdict. However, if passed, it could provide a framework for other states to follow. 

Many legislators in states across the U.S. are heeding the calls of the public and introducing ambitious new rules to impose stricter regulations on the oil and gas industry. This reflects the aims of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act and other national policies that aim to accelerate a green transition. However, while there is widespread support for such policies, getting far-reaching state climate laws passed will be an uphill battle that could take several years and incite strong opposition from the industry. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com 

 

U.S. Shale Faces Challenges in Electrifying Oilfield Operations

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Sep 28, 2024

• More than half of the exploration and production firms operating in Texas, northern Louisiana, and southern New Mexico have either electrified or plan to fully or partially electrify their oilfield operations.
• 
  
• Electrification reduces diesel consumption and emissions from oilfield operations.
• 
  
• Many oil companies executives are concerned about the cost of going electric.
• 
  

Costs and access to the grid are the main hurdles U.S. oil drillers and producers face as they seek to electrify operations, the latest Dallas Fed Energy Survey showed this week.

More than half of the exploration and production firms operating in Texas, northern Louisiana, and southern New Mexico have either electrified or plan to fully or partially electrify their oilfield operations.  

Service firms are less likely to electrify compared to small and large E&P companies, according to Dallas Fed's quarterly survey of executives.

While the majority of E&P firms look to electrify at least part of their oilfield operations, access to the grid, stability of the grid, and the high costs of going electric have emerged as the top challenges for U.S. operators.

Electrification reduces diesel consumption and emissions from oilfield operations, as well as noise and pollution from rigs and fracking equipment.

But the cost of going electric, the lead times for equipment, and uncertainties about future access to the grid and grid stability are the top challenges for the industry to fully embrace electrified oilfield operations.

Currently, 18% of executives said in the Dallas Fed Energy Survey that their firm's oilfield operations are already fully electrified. Another 6% of executives said they aim to completely electrify oilfield operations for their firm, and an additional 31% said they look to partially electrify operations. The remaining 45% said they do not plan to do so.

Related: U.S. Oil Drilling Sags: Baker Hughes

Small E&P firms, with crude oil production of fewer than 10,000 barrels per day, have electrified operations more than large firms and services companies, with 28% of small firms already fully electrified, compared with 9% percent of oil and gas support services firms and 6% of large E&P firms. Service firms are also slightly more likely than small and large companies to indicate they are not aiming to electrify their oilfield operations, the survey found.

Among the firms aiming to electrify or already electrified, 29% of executives of the companies focused on the Permian cited uncertainty about future access to the grid as the top challenge they see in electrification. Another 17% say that uncertainty about future grid stability is their top concern.

Firms embracing electrification with operations primarily outside the Permian cited costs as the top hurdle, 30% of executives, followed by 26% who see lead times for equipment as the top challenge.

"Too expensive" is the top challenge of 48% of executives of Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana firms not aiming to electrify operations. It is followed by concerns about grid access and grid stability.

"Most of our rigs are capable of running off grid power, but the logistical (regulatory and permitting) hurdles that our customers have to go through to bring power to the rig is formidable and expensive," an executive at a service firm said in comments to the survey's questions.

Another executive at a service firm commented, "To add the additional costs to electrify equipment, the returns have to be there through higher prices or reduced costs. That is not the case in our segment."

A third executive at an oilfield service company noted that their firm's operations are far too mobile and fast-paced to install the necessary electrical infrastructure. Moreover, suppliers are currently not making electrical options for many of the types of machinery, the executive added.

Electrification can help companies slash emissions from producing facilities by as much as 86% by electrifying the rigs and platforms to run on renewable electricity or natural gas that would be flared otherwise, Rystad Energy said in a report last week.

Even a partial electrification will significantly cut emissions, according to the research and energy intelligence company.

"As the world confronts the pressing issue of climate change, the oil and gas industry is under increasing pressure to minimize its carbon footprint and align its practices with global sustainability objectives," said Palzor Shenga, vice president of upstream research with Rystad Energy.

"Where it's possible and economically viable, electrification has great potential to lower the industry's emissions while maintaining production output."

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

 

Analyzing the Risk of Nuclear Conflict in Europe

By RFE/RL staff - Sep 29, 2024

• Russia possesses a significant nuclear arsenal, and a massive nuclear strike on Europe would likely overwhelm NATO's defenses.
• 
  
• The impact of a nuclear strike would be catastrophic, with little to no time for civilians to reach safety.
• 
  
• While the likelihood of a nuclear war remains low, experts warn of potential escalation steps and the importance of vigilance.

In the latest grim uptick of Russia's nuclear weapons policy, President Vladimir Putin suggested on September 25 that the Kremlin could use nuclear weapons against any state attacking Russia if that country was supported by a nuclear power.

If Russia were to launch a massive nuclear strike on Ukraine or Western Europe, there is not much the continent could do to stop it.

Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), is widely considered to be the world’s leading Western expert on Russia's nuclear weapons. He says there is no indication such a catastrophe is anywhere close to becoming a reality, but he paints a bleak picture of how a nuclear strike on Europe would unfold.

“If there were to be some kind of a massive launch -- or several [Russian] missiles have been launched -- then it’s pretty much impossible to guarantee that everything will be intercepted,” he says.

NATO’s internal calculations reportedly predict that in the event of an all-out attack from Russia, the military bloc has “less than 5 percent” of the air defenses needed.

Russia is believed to hold some 1,700 nuclear warheads inside more than 500 missiles able to be launched within minutes from silos, mobile launchers, submarines, and aircraft. The United States would probably be the primary target, but many of those missiles are known to be intended for Europe.

But if missile barrages are effectively unstoppable, what should civilians do in the event of a nuclear strike?

Some European capitals maintain Cold War-era nuclear shelters that are quietly being refreshed. In Kyiv, a nuclear bunker was recently reopened and made available for use.

In Prague, a network of Cold War bunkers has seen a spike in interest from locals since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The bunkers “are still functional since the fall of socialism and can be activated if necessary,” Jan Mikes, the head of the mayor’s crisis management department in the district of Prague 2, confirmed to RFE/RL.

A spokeswoman from the Czech Republic's Fire Rescue Service told RFE/RL that, beginning in 2023, the service began updating “requirements for the shelter system and the shelters themselves,” without elaborating further.

In Germany’s Ahr Valley, near Bonn, Heike Hollunder, the director of a nuclear bomb shelter that now operates as a museum, reported a significant recent jump in visitors.

“The interest increased, especially from younger people, because of the war in Ukraine,” he told RFE/RL. “Could the bunker still be used? Is there a nuclear bunker for the government in Berlin? These are the main questions.”

But such drastic precautions are probably futile. Podvig says a Russian nuclear strike would offer precious little time to escape to a hardened shelter. From launch to impact over a target in Central Europe, Podvig estimates, “would be in the order of 10 minutes or so.”

The United States maintains a network of satellites able to instantly spot the plume of a rocket being launched, but that system would probably be useless to countries close to Russia.

“The United States has all these sorts of warning systems -- the satellites and all that. But I would doubt that this information could be shared very quickly or at all with U.S. allies in the European states,” Podvig says.

Models of what modern nuclear weapons would do to cities make for bleak reading. A single Russian Topol-M missile would explode into a kilometer-wide ball of fire that would incinerate every living thing it touched. Within a 7 kilometer radius, countless civilians would die from severe burns and be crushed under the rubble of buildings destroyed by the shock wave. Then would come radiation that would saturate the blast site and poison air and water.

British military historian Basil Liddel Hart was witness to a 1955 war game in which NATO ran through a scenario of full-scale nuclear war with the Soviet Union. NATO won the exchange, but as the hypothetical dust settled, nearly every treasure of the Western world lay in ruins. Hart later described the experience as "very disturbing."

Victory, he wrote, "had lost its point."

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev is reported to have said that after all-out nuclear war, “the living will envy the dead.”

UNIDIR's Podvig is cautious about revealing his own calculations.

“I just try not to think about it because I know some catastrophic scenarios that are pretty bad,” he says.

As at the height of the Cold War, the only hard deterrent today is the mutually assured destruction that the West’s own stockpiles of hundreds of nuclear missiles ensures, along with a controversial policy of launch on warning (LOW).

The LOW posture allows for the United States to launch retaliatory strikes if incoming missiles are detected, before any impact on U.S. soil. The policy would prevent America’s own nuclear weapons from being destroyed in situ, but leaves open the possibility of a civilization-ending error.

Despite the steadily rising tensions between Russia and the West, Podvig says a nuclear apocalypse remains only a distant prospect.

“I do believe that before it would come to that, to the real possibility, we'll see quite a few kind of further escalation steps,” he says.

Along with specific rhetoric, Podvig predicts, “we would see some movements of weapons and things like that.”

He says he's confident that it remains “very unlikely that this could be something out of the blue.”

By RFE/RL 

 

Technological Advances Drive Solar Heater Market Growth

By Felicity Bradstock - Sep 29, 2024

• 
  
• Solar heaters are gaining popularity worldwide due to government incentives promoting renewable energy and consumer desire to reduce utility costs.
• 
  
• Cyprus leads in solar water heater adoption, with 93.5% of households utilizing this technology, exceeding renewable energy targets.
• 
  
• The solar water heater market is projected to reach $6.18 billion by 2028, driven by government policies, technological advancements, and consumer demand.

Solar-powered heating systems are becoming more popular as governments encourage a transition away from fossil fuels to renewable alternatives and consumers look for ways to reduce their utility bills. Just like residential solar panels that provide consumers with electricity, solar heaters are being installed in homes around the globe as part of government initiatives as well as privately. 

Solar water heating systems include a storage tank and a solar collector. There are two types of systems available: active, which have circulating pumps and controls, and passive, which do not. There are two types of active solar water heating systems: direct circulation systems, which have pumps that circulate household water through the collectors and into the home and indirect circulation systems, which have pumps that circulate non-freezing, heat-transfer fluid through the collectors and a heat exchanger, heating the water that flows into the home. The latter works more effectively in cold climates than the former.  

Passive solar water heating systems are generally less expensive than active systems, although not as efficient. However, they can be more reliable and last longer. There are also two basic types of passive systems. The Integral collector-storage passive system has a storage tank covered with a transparent material, which allows the sun to heat the water before delivering it to the plumbing system. Thermosyphon systems work by heating water in a collector on the roof before transporting it to the plumbing system when a hot water faucet is opened. Most of these systems have a 40-gallon capacity.  

As they rely on solar power, these systems typically require a backup system for cloudy days and times of high demand. Backups can come in the form of conventional storage water heaters or as part of the solar collector, such as rooftop tanks with thermosyphon systems. Solar water heaters need to be maintained every three to five years and some parts may need replacing every two to 10 years. Once installed, they can massively reduce consumer utility bills, particularly in regions with greater solar irradiance.

In Europe, Cyprus has the largest proportion of solar-powered water heaters. The island country in the eastern Mediterranean Sea is embracing solar heaters to take advantage of its favourable weather conditions, support a green transition, and help reduce consumer energy bills. Around 93.5 percent of households now use solar water heaters, which has helped Cypris to exceed its renewable energy targets for the heating and cooling of buildings. 

Cyprus’s environment commissioner Charalampos Theopemptou stated, “There are many areas where Cyprus has not achieved greenhouse gas emission goals… But in terms of renewable energy resources being used for the sustainable heating and cooling of buildings, we’ve met the target easily, precisely because of such extensive utilisation of solar water heaters for so many years.”

Cyprus has been using solar water heaters since the 1960s, putting it way ahead of most other countries. The technology became popular as it requires just solar panels, a tank and copper pipes – as well as the right weather conditions. On average, Cyprus enjoys over 300 days of sunshine a year, making it the perfect environment for the technology. The rollout of solar heaters has led to the development of a domestic manufacturing industry and the creation of many jobs. Although installation costs have risen over the years, there are EU-funded grants for households looking to install solar heaters. 

In the Middle East and North Africa region, solar-powered water heaters have also grown in popularity in recent years. In Jordan this September, the Energy and Mineral Resources Minister Saleh Kharabsheh launched phase two of the government’s solar heater subsidy programme, which covers 30 percent of the cost. The scheme will support the installation of 5,000 solar systems at a cost of up to $4.2 million. The previous phase saw the installation of 3,500 solar water heaters. 

In Egypt, three out of four households relied on butane cylinders just a decade ago, as there was little access to a grid-connected supply of natural gas. In 2023, Egyptians consumed around 800,000 butane cylinders a day, many of which were subsidised by the government. This has encouraged many households to invest in solar-powered water heaters in recent years. In 2024, Egypt’s solar water heater market is estimated at over $100 million, as it deploys its UNIDO-backed Solar Heating in Industrial Process (SHIP) programme. There are now 11 solar heater manufacturing operations in Egypt and the government is looking to strengthen ties with Tunisia and Jordan to grow the market further. 

The solar water heater market value is expected to increase from $4.26 billion in 2023 to around $6.18 billion by 2028, with a compound annual growth rate of 7.4 percent. Asia-Pacific is expected to be the fastest-growing region for solar water heaters in this period. Industry growth will be supported by technological innovation, as companies introduce predictive analytics and artificial intelligence into their heaters to improve performance. The market will largely be driven by government policies to transition away from fossil fuels to green alternatives, national and regional grants for disadvantaged communities, and the increased consumer demand to reduce their energy bills.  

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com 

 

Zelenskiy's U.S. Visit Sparks Political Firestorm

By RFE/RL staff - Sep 30, 2024

• Zelenskiy's visit to a munitions factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania, sparked controversy among Republicans, who viewed it as a partisan campaign event.
• 
  
• Trump and other Republicans have criticized US aid to Ukraine and suggested that Kyiv should negotiate with Russia.
• 
  
• The future of US support for Ukraine remains uncertain, with the outcome of the presidential election potentially having a significant impact on the war's trajectory.
• 
  

In 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was dragged into the U.S. presidential election campaign. This time, just weeks before a vote that could have a massive influence on Kyiv's defense against the Russian invasion, he walked right into it.

On September 22, Zelenskiy toured a munitions factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania, that makes ammunition for his armed forces, thanking workers and signing one of the 155 mm shells that are crucial for Kyiv's war effort. He was joined by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and two members of the House of Representatives, all Democrats.

Had Zelenskiy visited the plant during any of his four previous trips to the United States since Russia launched the full-scale invasion in February 2022, it might have been long forgotten by now.

Instead, it has turned into a flashpoint for Republicans, creating controversy that marred his the nearly weeklong visit to the United States, Ukraine's biggest backer, at a time when Russia is making gains on the battlefield, decimating Ukraine's energy infrastructure as winter approaches, and counting on Western support for Kyiv to wither.

Battleground

Scranton is President Joe Biden's hometown. Pennsylvania is a crucial battleground state whose voters could end up deciding the November 5 election between Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

For Zelenskiy, the factory tour was meant "to demonstrate and show…that the assistance to Ukraine is beneficial to the United States itself, because this assistance makes it possible to create new jobs," Alyona Getmanchuk, director of the Ukrainian think tank New Europe Center and a nonresident senior fellow at the U.S.-based Atlantic Council Eurasia Center, told RFE/RL in Kyiv.

Trump, she said, apparently "perceived this as an attempt to…influence the electoral balance, which is very fragile in the state of Pennsylvania. That is, he saw it exclusively in the context of the election."

As Zelenskiy's U.S. trip continued with speeches at the United Nations and meetings with Biden and Harris at the White House, Republicans lashed out over the factory tour. The speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, called it "a partisan campaign event" and demanded Zelenskiy "immediately fire" his ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova.

Charles Kupchan, an analyst at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, said the munitions plant visit "backfired."

"It's more an indication of the polarized debate between Democrats and Republicans than it is about any missteps taken by Zelenskiy," he told RFE/RL.

'Much More Difficult'

Mykola Byelyeskov, an analyst at the Ukrainian government-backed National Institute for Strategic Studies in Kyiv, suggested the U.S. election campaign makes navigating ties with Kyiv's most crucial backer particularly tricky.

"Zelenskiy is doing his best" on the U.S. trip, Byelyeskov told RFE/RL. "We see some results. I'm sure that we'll see more results. And we need to deal with every single faction in U.S. politics. And we are trying to do this. And it's much more difficult during the election season."

For Biden, it's also "very difficult to take radical steps that in his mind might bring the issue of escalation closer. Because all the surveys in the U.S., domestic ones, they say that the American population is indeed concerned with hypothetical nuclear escalation," he said. "That's why it makes it more difficult for Ukraine to argue for various things that we need."

During the visit, Zelenskiy did not secure a public promise that the United States would permit Kyiv to strike deeper into Russia with U.S. long-range missiles.

A group of Republicans in the House held up $61 billion in mostly military aid for Ukraine for six months, leading to a deficit of ammunition on the battlefield, in part on the grounds that the money could be better spent at home. The United States spends the majority of the aid money at home on restocking arms and equipment sent to Ukraine, and the trip to Scranton highlighted that fact.

Johnson had been instrumental in eventually getting the package through; his public ire over the plant visit signaled goodwill over that development is gone.

Kurt Volker, a Pennsylvania native who served as a special envoy to Ukraine under Trump in 2017-2019, called the timing of the factory tour "a huge mistake."

"It is a very sensitive time, a sensitive issue, a sensitive state -- like, the key swing state. It is just playing with fire, and Ukraine should do everything possible to avoid being a political subject in our election," said Volker, who is now an analyst at the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington.

Way Back When

Lucian Kim, senior Ukraine analyst for the Crisis Group, called the visit a "misstep" on Zelenskiy's part that opened him up for criticism from opponents of aid for Ukraine within the Republican Party faction known as MAGA Republicans for their unyielding support for Trump and his policies.

"Bilateral U.S. support has been one of the foundations of Ukrainian foreign policy," Kim said. "That level of bipartisan support now seems to be in question. The MAGA wing, which is unsympathetic to Ukraine, is increasingly defining the Republican party."

The Pennsylvania plant visit was at last one factor raising doubts about an expected meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump -- whose relationship has been colored for years by a phone call in 2019, just months after the Ukrainian leader's election, that led to Trump's impeachment -- would take place.

Trump was impeached by the then-Democratic-controlled House of Representatives in December 2019 over the phone call in which he was accused of pressuring Zelenskiy to dig up dirt on the Biden family's activities in Ukraine. He was acquitted by the Senate, then controlled by the Republicans, in February 2020.

Trump took aim at Zelenskiy several times. At a campaign stop on September 25, he repeated his description of the Ukrainian president as "the greatest salesman in the world" -- a reference to the tens of billions of dollars in aid lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have approved since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion.

'Proposals For Surrender'

He also repeated his argument that Kyiv should have reached an agreement with Russia to stave off or end the invasion. "Any deal -- the worst deal -- would've been better than what we have now," he asserted. "If they made a bad deal, it would've been much better. They would've given up a little bit and everybody would be living."

Trump has said he would bring an end to Russia's war against Ukraine quickly if he is elected, several times saying it would happen even before the inauguration in January -- a claim he made again when he and Zelenskiy met in New York on September 27. He has not said how he would accomplish this, but his comments have raised concerns his efforts would involve exhorting Ukraine to hand territory to Russia.

On the main purposes of Zelenskiy's U.S. trip was to present Biden and others with a "victory plan" for the war against the Russian invasion, though details have not been released. Trump, in his debate against Harris on September 10, declined to answer directly when asked whether he wants Ukraine to win, saying, "I want the war to stop."

On September 26, Harris said suggestions that Kyiv should cede territory for the sake of peace are "dangerous and unacceptable." Such calls are "proposals for surrender," she said.

A Meeting In New York

In an interview with The New Yorker ahead of his U.S. visit, Zelenskiy said, "Trump doesn't really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how." He also said JD Vance, Trump's running mate, is "too radical" and has suggested he wants Ukraine "to give up our territories."

The atmosphere seemed warmer when Zelenskiy and Trump held talks at the Trump Tower in New York, with Trump praising Zelenskiy for his conduct during the impeachment process -- "he was a piece of steel" -- but there was no sign of a change in Trump's attitude toward the Russian invasion.

Trump again offered no details on how he would seek an end to the war, saying he believes that "we're going to get it resolved very quickly" if he wins the presidency. "If we have a win, I think long before January 20…we can work out something that's good for both sides this time," Trump said before the two sat down for the meeting.

"It's a shame but this is a war that should have never happened, and we'll get it solved," Trump said after the meeting. "It is a complicated puzzle.... Too many people dead."

In a Telegram post after what he called a “very meaningful meeting,” Zelenskiy said that he had presented his “victory plan” to Trump and that they “discussed used many details.”

"We have a common view that the war in Ukraine must be stopped. Putin cannot win. The Ukrainians must win," he said.

Whether Zelenskiy's visit will affect the outcome of the U.S. election is an open question.

"Foreign policy issues in general don't determine [U.S.] electoral outcomes. People vote on the economy, on immigration, on crime, what's on their radar screen on a day-to-day basis," Kupchan said.

And exactly how a win for Trump or for Harris might change the course of the war is also unclear.

Kupchan said that despite Trump's rhetoric, he will struggle to cut a deal with Putin if elected and likely end up approving aid for Ukraine.

"Trump would not want to be the American president who lost Ukraine. And so even if he gets elected and tries to negotiate an end game, he too is going to end up having to send support to Ukraine," he said.

By RFE/RL