EDITOR'S CORNER: Who is the United States Allies With?

Last Friday, Trump announced plans to lift U.S. sanctions on Russian oil. An unprecedented move that could help ease gasoline prices for American consumers just ahead of the midterm elections. But while lower prices at the pump may offer short-term relief, the decision could have far-reaching consequences well beyond the United States, potentially leaving Ukraine in an even more vulnerable position.

In this blog post, we’ll examine what Trump has done and what it could mean for the global economy, energy markets, and the war in Ukraine. Trump has also openly called for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to step down. But, would that actually be a smart move, and what could it mean for Ukraine?

And perhaps most importantly: why does the United States remain dependent on global oil and diesel markets, including energy supplies historically linked to its geopolitical rival, Russia?

Let’s take a closer look at the decision, its potential consequences, and the bigger geopolitical picture behind it.

USA CUTS DEAL WITH RUSSIA FOR DIESEL

It seems that Trump lost his nerve after USA requested from Ukraine several times that they should stop hitting diesel and oil refineries in Russia. This has been a long war tactic of Ukraine to make sure that they cut the aggressor's purse strings right where it counts. However, this has also been a thorn in President Trump's side, because be believes that this battle tactic is the reason why diesel prices are so high all over the world. Therefore, Trump has decided to make a straight deal with Russia. 

The deal is that Russia would release more than 300,000 metric tons of diesel immediately to U.S. and global markets, followed by another 500,000 tons in November. Trump said a further 1 million tons would then be released, followed by another 3 million tons “within a short period of time.” At the same time, the U.S. Treasury issued a temporary sanctions waiver allowing certain Russian diesel shipments to proceed, with the authorization covering eligible fuel loaded onto tankers as of Friday and remaining in effect until April 2027. Putin also said Russia was prepared to supply oil and petroleum products to U.S. and global markets, while the two leaders agreed to continue contacts on a range of issues, including Ukraine, Iran, and broader U.S.–Russia relations.

The first tranche of diesel that is said to arrive soon is USA will be enough for less than one day. The reality is that this amount of diesel will not be seen at the pump for weeks or months. And, it does not solve the situation overall. 

WHAT ABOUT UKRAINE?

This deal could have serious consequences for Ukraine and, more broadly, for Europe.

First, it risks providing Russia with additional revenue to sustain its war against Ukraine. Kyiv has been counting on the cumulative economic pressure of a prolonged war, combined with repeated strikes on Russian oil refineries, to gradually erode Moscow’s financial resources. The objective is clear: to make the cost of continuing the war increasingly difficult for Putin to justify. This deal, however, risks reversing that pressure.

Russia would effectively be receiving financial support from the West while continuing its illegal invasion of Ukraine. The money coming from the United States would be coming from the same Western alliance that is supposed to be helping Ukraine defend itself. The Kremlin could use this additional revenue to fund more contract soldiers, procure more weapons and drones, and sustain the military campaign that continues to kill Ukrainians.

Second, the deal could undermine one of Ukraine’s most important strategies: striking Russian oil refineries and fuel infrastructure to weaken Moscow’s war economy. Already, President Trump has blamed Zelenskyy for the continuation of the war and openly called for Ukraine to choose a new president. It is tempting to dismiss such remarks as just another example of Trump’s daily rhetoric. But the danger is that, sooner or later, these statements could translate into concrete political pressure.

Washington could begin demanding that Kyiv scale back or stop its attacks on Russian refineries, particularly if those strikes contribute to higher fuel prices that affect American consumers. In other words, Ukraine could find itself under pressure to abandon a strategy designed to weaken Russia’s ability to wage war precisely because that strategy has economic consequences for the United States.

The wider concern is that European allies could also be exposed to pressure and manipulation. If Washington uses its economic and political leverage to push for concessions that benefit Russia, European governments may find it increasingly difficult to maintain a united position in support of Ukraine.

The fundamental question is this: why should Ukraine be expected to weaken its own defence while Russia receives additional resources to continue the war? Any deal that risks shifting the economic burden away from Moscow and onto Kyiv’s allies deserves serious scrutiny. Not only because of its immediate implications for Ukraine, but also because of what it could mean for Europe’s long-term security.

WHAT ABOUT EUROPE?

I believe European allies are also deeply frustrated by Trump’s decision. While some European countries continue to import Russian crude oil and gas, the European Union has made a concerted effort since the full-scale invasion began to reduce its dependence on Russian energy and trade. Although a small number of member states remain determined to maintain commercial ties with the Kremlin, the broader direction of EU policy has been to reduce that dependence and limit Moscow’s economic leverage over Europe.

Trump’s latest deal with Putin could put European governments and NATO allies in an extraordinarily difficult position. Washington increasingly appears to expect its allies to align fully with American policy, with serious consequences for those who refuse. Spain, the United Kingdom and Germany have all faced tensions with Trump over their positions on the war involving Iran. The concern is that disagreement with Washington could trigger economic or political retaliation, leaving European governments to weigh their own security interests against the risk of provoking the US president.

This creates a dangerous dilemma for Europe. European allies could increase their support for Ukraine to offset the consequences of Trump’s deal, including by helping Kyiv sustain its campaign against Russian oil refineries. But doing so could provoke retaliation from Washington. Alternatively, they could attempt to impose stricter conditions on how Ukraine uses the money, weapons and other assistance it receives. That, however, could restrict Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and leave Europe facing an even greater Russian threat.

Either choice risks undermining European security. If Europe increases its support for Ukraine, it could face American economic or military retaliation. If it limits that support to accommodate Washington, it risks weakening Ukraine’s defence and allowing Russia to sustain its war effort. In effect, Europe could find itself paying a higher price for a policy over which it has little control.

The implications for NATO could be particularly serious. If European governments support Ukraine’s attacks on Russian refineries despite American objections, Washington could respond with tariffs, reductions in its military presence in Europe, or the withdrawal of troops and equipment from allied countries. These are potential scenarios rather than inevitable outcomes, but even the possibility of such measures could undermine trust within the alliance.

And this is precisely the kind of division that Moscow would welcome. If the United States and its European allies begin working at cross-purposes, Russia could interpret the growing discord as evidence that Western unity is weakening and that American security commitments to Europe are becoming less reliable.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION NOW?

The deal was announced on Friday, 9 October, but the arrival of the first ship from St Petersburg this week suggests that the arrangements must have been underway well before the announcement. The journey across the ocean cannot happen in a single weekend. This raises serious questions about what was agreed behind closed doors and reinforces concerns about whether the United States can still be considered a predictable and dependable ally.

We seem to be returning to a world where great powers decide the fate of smaller nations according to their own interests. Ukraine may have the best weapons, tactics and soldiers, but without sustained political support, even the strongest military cannot guarantee victory. Politics ultimately shape the outcome of wars, and Ukraine risks paying the price for decisions made by its allies.

The solution is far from straightforward. Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security without abandoning Ukraine or undermining NATO. This means increasing military and financial support for Kyiv, expanding weapons production, strengthening air defences and reducing dependence on external powers. Crucially, Europe must defend Ukraine’s right to protect itself and develop a common strategy that cannot be dictated by the political preferences of any single leader.

At the same time, Europe must preserve its relationship with the United States and persuade Trump that a divided West serves the interests of Russia and China. European strategic independence is essential, but isolation is not the answer. To protect the international order and deter future aggression, Europe, the United States, Canada and other Western partners must work together. Europe must be prepared to stand on its own feet, while doing everything possible to ensure that the transatlantic alliance does not fall apart.

CONCLUSION 

The consequences of a deal between the United States and Russia extend far beyond Ukraine. NATO’s strength depends not only on its military capabilities, but also on the credibility of its commitments and the unity of its members. Without American leadership and military support, European allies would face an enormous challenge in ensuring their collective defence.

Trump’s decision risks creating a strategic paradox: an agreement intended to reshape the situation in Ukraine could instead deepen divisions among Western allies, weaken NATO and give Russia greater freedom to pursue its ambitions in Europe.

Ultimately, the question is no longer just what this deal means for Ukraine, but whether Europe can safeguard its own security if the United States becomes an unpredictable partner within the very alliance that has underpinned European defence for decades.