Sky News reports:
Our US correspondent David Blevins has explained why Moscow and Kyiv would each agree to an energy ceasefire.
For Russia, "that's quite easy to answer," he says.
"The less [Ukraine] attacks Russia's fuel infrastructure, the more likely Moscow is to be able to deliver on this deal Putin has done with Trump to provide the United States with nearly two million tons of fuel between now and Christmas.
"What's in it for Ukraine? I think that is more difficult to answer."
Well that's strange as it is Ukraine and the EU that has been pushing for a ceasefire for months.
Also if Russia is committed to delivering diesel to the world/USA and Ukraine hits their facilities while the deal is on, Russia can claim the high ground.
And the easy answer for Ukraine is not that Ukrainians could spend the next winter in the dark and cold if Russia keeps attacking their energy infrastructure?
So this facile 'analysis' does not make sense.
Then Sky goes on to report:
Previous ceasefire attempts have failed because of Russia, says former US official
William B Taylor, who served as chargé d'affaires at the US embassy in Kyiv, has explained why previous attempts to broker Russia-Ukraine ceasefires have failed.
"The problem has been, over the past several years, that the Russians have not agreed," he told Sky News presenter Barbara Serra.
So it's Russia that doesn't want a ceasefire, in contradiction of the first report.
And the problem was, way back in 2022, that the West did not agree to Russia's peace proposals at the Istanbul talks, which maybe the US diplomat has conveniently forgotten.
Does Sky even read their own stuff?