On October 9, US President Donald Trump announced a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to permit the sale of millions of tonnes of Russian diesel. The agreement marks a sharp departure from longstanding US policy and directly contradicts a law Trump himself signed in September authorizing new sanctions and tariffs on nations importing Russian oil and gas.
The timing could hardly have been worse. A senior Ukrainian and European delegation was in Miami for talks with Trump's envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. On the table were new US proposals, including a pre-winter de-escalation in the four-and-a-half-year war. The US envoys reportedly signaled that sanctions relief for Russia was imminent, but the announcement still caught Ukrainian and European officials off guard. The talks ended the same day, a day early, with no agreement.
If the diesel deal were purely about fuel, its impact would be modest. The volumes mentioned amount to just under six million barrels—roughly a day and a half of US diesel demand, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Even if Russia can deliver those volumes—which is doubtful, given the Kremlin's own export ban—the effect on global diesel prices would be negligible. Moreover, the recent rise in diesel prices stems largely from Trump's military confrontation with Iran, not from Russian supply.
Bullying tactics and the refinery strikes
Since returning to power in January 2025, Trump has repeatedly tried to bully Kyiv into concessions, but Ukraine and its European allies have consistently rejected any territorial cession. The diesel deal is another attempt to pressure Ukraine into abandoning one of its most effective recent tools: long-range drone and missile strikes on Russian refineries. These strikes have reportedly cut Russian refining capacity by up to 60% in recent months.
Trump has been pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to halt these attacks, blaming Ukraine—rather than the war with Iran—for high diesel prices. Zelensky has been firm: “Ukraine will not set Russian oil refineries on fire if Russia does not destroy our energy infrastructure.” This echoes a proposal he made on September 22, which Trump had endorsed. But Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that halting refinery strikes alone would not lower prices; sanctions relief on Russian energy exports would also be required.
The October 9 deal provides exactly that relief. Putin gets the economic half of an energy truce he wanted without committing to the military half. Indeed, when Trump declared an “energy ceasefire” that “both parties have agreed” (both sides denied any agreement), Russia responded by striking Ukrainian power plants.
Trump further aligned with Putin on October 10, telling Ukraine to “get a new leader.” Meanwhile, reports from the Miami talks suggest Washington threatened to cut intelligence sharing and block weapons sales to Ukraine if the strikes continue, though the US has not commented.
Ukraine's recent battlefield success in Operation Vivaldi, which analysts say halted Russia's advance in the Donetsk region, makes the economic front even more critical. But the diesel deal strains transatlantic relations further. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned that “suspending sanctions on Russian diesel provides Moscow with more revenues to wage war” and that “this is not the time to ease pressure on Russia, and Europe won't.”
Yet Europe's growing dependence on US diesel—and energy imports more broadly—limits its ability to push back. This vulnerability also raises questions about the effectiveness of the EU's next sanctions package. As winter approaches, a comprehensive settlement seems as distant as ever, and the lifting of sanctions on Russian diesel makes even a partial energy truce harder to achieve.
Most worrying for the long term: under Trump, the US is closer to Moscow's position than at any point since the full-scale invasion. For more on this shift, see Trump's open embrace of Putin. The implications for Ukraine's winter are dire, as Putin's scorched-city strategy continues to devastate the country. Meanwhile, Europe's energy dependence is part of a broader trade gambit with China that tests its resolve.
