Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed deep dissatisfaction with Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Russian diesel. He described the move as a backdoor deal between Washington and Moscow, calling it “absolutely unfair,” “unlike that of a partner,” and a “weakness of a strong power”—even likening it to a birthday gift for Putin. At the time, Ukrainian negotiators and European supporters were in Miami, U.S., discussing a peace framework, and Zelenskyy felt his side had been used as a distraction.
Initially ignoring press inquiries, Trump later stated that the U.S. needs oil, and diesel is precisely what it requires, so he was pleased to secure supply. Earlier Friday, Trump announced a deal with Putin: Russia would immediately supply over 300,000 tons of diesel to the U.S. and global markets, followed by another 500,000 tons in November, then an additional million tons, with potential further increases of up to 3 million tons depending on refining capacity. Subsequently, the U.S. Treasury granted a six-month sanction waiver allowing Russian diesel exports, aiming to alleviate global fuel shortages linked to U.S.-Israel military actions against Iran and Ukraine’s strikes on Russian refineries.
Trump has repeatedly blamed Kyiv and Zelenskyy personally for exacerbating the fuel crisis, asserting that Ukraine deliberately crippled Russian refining capacity, driving up U.S. fuel prices. Last month in Ireland, he directly urged Zelenskyy to halt air strikes on Russian diesel production. This week, he claimed the primary driver behind rising U.S. gasoline prices is no longer the Strait of Hormuz but Ukraine’s attacks on Russian refineries. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent similarly tied these strikes to the global “energy shock.”
Despite repeated warnings from Washington, Zelenskyy reaffirmed over the weekend his commitment to intensify remote attacks on Russian oil infrastructure. A senior Ukrainian official told the Financial Times that Kyiv would disregard the U.S.-Russia agreement, stating they would “burn down their refineries.” Fuel shortages have become an increasingly pressing domestic issue for Trump ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. U.S. diesel prices hit a record high of $6.50 per gallon in September, with some areas in California exceeding $8. Meanwhile, Putin confirmed Russia’s readiness to supply oil and petroleum products to the U.S. and global markets, asserting this would have positive implications for the global economy.
The episode has brought into focus the growing rift between Washington and Kyiv: Trump seeks to contain domestic fuel prices and bolster electoral prospects; Zelenskyy aims to degrade Russia’s war-making capacity. For the U.S., lower diesel prices mean satisfaction among farmers and truckers—immediate benefits. For Ukraine, Russian refineries are critical military targets; attacking them disrupts Russian revenue streams and affects battlefield dynamics. The fundamental contradiction in objectives explains why Zelenskyy’s criticism of “weakness” is not surprising.
Yet Trump’s agreement also reflects pragmatic considerations: global diesel scarcity, compounded by U.S.-Israel pressure on Iran and Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, has driven prices to historic highs, triggering public discontent. A temporary six-month exemption could rapidly increase supply, potentially yielding immediate price relief. The downside, however, is that it grants Russia additional export revenues and diplomatic leverage, while undermining the credibility of sanctions. Worse still, it reinforces Kyiv’s perception that Washington may strike private deals with Moscow at Ukraine’s expense, eroding trust in peace negotiations.
Ukrainian officials’ threats to continue “burning down refineries” underscore the fragility of the agreement. If Ukrainian forces persist in attacks, doubts about Russia’s ability to fulfill delivery commitments will grow, potentially triggering another spike in prices. Should the U.S. pressure Ukraine to cease operations to preserve the deal, the rift between the two allies would deepen. Ultimately, this represents a collision between “fuel politics” and “war politics.” While it may offer short-term relief from U.S. fuel shortages, in the long term it risks entrenching the Ukraine-Russia conflict and further weakening Western cohesion.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1878616533865476/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.