Donald Trump announced an agreement with Vladimir Putin on the supply of Russian diesel fuel, after which the U.S. temporarily eased the relevant sanctions. At the same time, the U.S. president accused Volodymyr Zelenskyy of being unwilling to end the war and publicly urged Ukrainians to elect a new leader.

In an exclusive interview with Channel 24, American political analyst Yuriy Rashkin analyzed the circumstances surrounding Washington’s agreement with Moscow and the reaction to it in the United States. He paid particular attention to the timeline of Russian fuel shipments, which raised questions for him about the true timing of the agreements.

On October 9, Donald Trump reported a successful phone call with Putin, after which he announced an agreement regarding Russian diesel fuel. However, as Rashkin pointed out, as early as September 22, the Greek-flagged tanker Minerva Zen had departed from St. Petersburg and, according to analysts, was heading for the U.S. East Coast.

According to the information provided, the ship was carrying approximately 280,000 barrels of diesel fuel, or 37,000–38,000 metric tons. At the time of the U.S. president’s public statement, the tanker had already been at sea for 17 days, although Trump presented the agreement as the result of a conversation that had just concluded.

Trump says: “I have just concluded an extremely successful conversation with President Vladimir Putin.” “Just now” – yet by that point, the tanker had already been at sea for 17 days. And, as analysts note, all that time it had been heading toward the U.S. East Coast,
– Rashkin pointed out.

An additional issue arose due to Russian export restrictions. Moscow banned the export of diesel fuel back in July, and at the end of September extended the ban until the end of October. At the same time, U.S. sanctions also restricted the ability to purchase Russian petroleum products.

Rashkin believes that preparations for the voyage under these circumstances could have begun following prior contacts between the parties. However, the date of the tanker’s departure alone does not make it possible to determine exactly when Washington and Moscow agreed on the shipment.

Fuel
Average prices at Amic Energy filling stations as of 

The tanker departed from St. Petersburg at a time when Moscow was not officially exporting diesel and headed for a destination where U.S. sanctions prohibited its purchase. And yet it went anyway. So someone knew. When Trump says, “I just made a deal,” it means, “I just told you about it.” The deal wasn’t concluded on Friday; it was announced on Friday,
the analyst believes.

It was precisely the Minerva Zen’s route and the restrictions in effect at the time of its departure from port that provided grounds for the assumption that the agreement had been prepared in advance. At the same time, the actual fulfillment of all the deliveries announced by Trump remains a separate issue, since Russia itself has faced problems with diesel production.

While Trump was speaking with Putin, a Ukrainian delegation in Miami was preparing for talks with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. However, the outcome of the contact between the U.S. and Russian presidents was the announcement of an agreement on diesel fuel, rather than a ceasefire, a prisoner exchange, or a halt to Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities.

Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued a temporary license for certain transactions involving Russian diesel fuel, valid through April 2027. This was a relaxation of restrictions on a specific type of trade, not a complete lifting of U.S. sanctions against Russia.

As reported by The New York Times, the Kremlin apparently did not offer any concessions in return. Subsequently, Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov stated that the Russian side would still consider the question of when negotiations could resume.

A few hours later, Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov said, “We’ll think about when these talks can resume.” We’ll think about it. You see, it’s not Ukraine saying, ‘We’ll think about it.’ It’s those whose sanctions have just been eased who are saying this. They were given a gift, and yet they’re still going to think about it,
– Rashkin exclaimed indignantly.

The commentator compared Moscow’s stance to a warning from former U.S. Ambassador to Poland Daniel Fried. The diplomat described Russian behavior using the metaphor of bouquets: while the West constantly tries to win the Kremlin’s favor with new proposals, the Russian leadership only expects greater concessions.

The Ukrainian side also expressed its dissatisfaction. Zelenskyy told reporters that the Ukrainian delegation was effectively being used as a smokescreen, and stressed that partners should not behave this way toward one another.

According to information cited by Rashkin, the talks in Miami ended without a result. At the same time, the Kremlin announced its intention to maintain personal contacts between the presidents and to continue cooperation between the administrations and intelligence agencies.

For Trump, this is a pre-election headline: “I’ve made a deal.” About what? It doesn’t matter. Whether this diesel fuel will actually arrive is a big question. For Ukraine – Zaporizhzhia. That’s the whole story,
– Rashkin noted.

The day after the agreement was announced, Russia attacked a residential area in Zaporizhzhia with five guided aerial bombs. According to data cited by the columnist, at least 20 people were killed, including three children.

He also mentioned a strike on a residential building in northern Ukraine, where, according to reports, 22 people were killed, including five children. In total, over the past week, Rashkin claimed, more than 100 civilians fell victim to Russian attacks.

Zelenskyy warned that easing pressure on the Kremlin could be perceived by the Russian authorities as an opportunity to continue the strikes. Following the attack on Zaporizhzhia, the Ukrainian president linked it to Washington’s decision, stating that Moscow had responded to the easing of sanctions with new bombings of residential buildings.

Rashkin views the diesel deal as a continuation of the American approach to negotiations with the Kremlin, in which economic concessions are offered even before concrete results are achieved. He recalled that Ukraine had previously agreed to Trump’s call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, while Russia refused.

However, Moscow’s position did not result in commensurate consequences for the Kremlin. As the New York Times noted, Ukraine received no reward for agreeing to the American proposal, while Russia paid no price for its refusal.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio attributed the difficulties in the negotiations to the fact that the war had reached a strategic impasse. Zelenskyy, on the other hand, denied the existence of a diplomatic impasse and insisted that the main problem remains insufficient pressure on Moscow.

Peace is when the killing stops. A deal is when someone sells something. And that’s exactly what The New York Times is writing about: American diplomacy is shifting from seeking a lasting peace to chasing business deals with Russia. Chasing deals while the rubble is still being cleared in Zaporizhzhia,
” said Rashkin.

To explain his concerns, the columnist recalled his experience working on the city council in Janesville, Wisconsin. After the General Motors plant closed, the city was in desperate need of jobs, and Shine Medical Technologies proposed a project that required significant support from local authorities.

The city council supported the agreement, but Rashkin was the only member to vote against it. He doubted the wisdom of paying funds in advance when the company had not yet proven its ability to fulfill its promises.

I said something like this at the time: “You’re building a bridge out of a material that’s never been used to build bridges. Maybe it will hold, and maybe it won’t, but we’re the ones paying for it now.” Trump is now building the exact same bridge. Only instead of a promising company, it’s the Kremlin, and instead of city funds, it’s sanctions, Ukraine, and other people’s lives,
” the analyst explained.

Similar doubts were raised by a New York Times report on proposals made by American negotiators, which were discussed with the Russian side as early as late September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Their goal was to secure at least a partial halt to attacks on the energy sector or an agreement on maritime security.

Among the possible incentives mentioned were the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Russian sovereign assets, the sale of a portion of Lukoil’s assets, and allowing Belarus to export potash fertilizers. According to the publication, potential buyers of the Russian company’s assets could have been groups of investors from the Middle East, including individuals with business ties to American negotiators.

Rashkin was particularly concerned about the possibility of unfreezing Russian assets as an advance payment rather than after agreements were reached. He suggested that with such an approach, the Kremlin could gain new economic opportunities without changing its position on the war.

The economic aspects of the agreement also raised doubts for the analyst. Russia has been limiting diesel fuel exports for several months due to refining problems, which have worsened following Ukrainian strikes on oil refineries.

According to data cited by Rashkin, Russian diesel exports in the first quarter amounted to approximately 850,000 barrels per day. In the third quarter, this figure fell to 190,000 barrels, and Russia itself began purchasing some of its diesel fuel and gasoline abroad.

Neil Atkinson, former head of the oil markets division at the International Energy Agency, suggested that in the near future, Moscow will be able to meet its stated supply targets solely through its own domestic market. This calls into question not only export volumes but also Russia’s ability to simultaneously meet domestic demand.

In the third quarter, Russia began importing diesel and gasoline on its own for the first time. Buying from others itself. And now Trump is buying diesel from this very country. Neil Atkinson states plainly: in the near future, Russia can supply such volumes only by drawing on its own domestic market,
Rashkin said.

Trump announced an initial shipment of 300,000 metric tons of diesel, followed by another 500,000 metric tons and eventually one million metric tons. However, according to the analyst’s estimates, the U.S. market consumes nearly 4 million barrels of diesel per day, so the announced shipments may have a limited impact on prices.

Analyst Chris Bosheim also expressed doubt that the agreement would yield the expected results. He called it a typical example of Trump’s approach, in which the U.S. president announces large numbers after negotiations with an authoritarian leader, even though it remains uncertain whether the promises will be fulfilled.

“Announce a deal with an unsavory dictator, put impressive numbers in the headline, and have absolutely no confidence that any of it will actually happen,”
– that is how the columnist paraphrased the analyst’s assessment.

Despite experts’ doubts, Trump continued to describe the potential shipments as substantial. In particular, he spoke of large volumes of fuel allegedly flowing into the United States, even though Russia itself has faced the need to purchase certain petroleum products.

Rashkin does not rule out that some of the announced shipments will take place, but sees no reason to believe that the entire agreement will be fulfilled. He also doubts that such volumes will have a significant impact on the cost of diesel for American consumers.

The easing of U.S. restrictions on Russian diesel sparked a sharp reaction from Democratic Party representatives. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the agreement with Putin, citing Russia’s support for Iran.

Senators Jean Shaheen and Elizabeth Warren also opposed the decision, calling it a betrayal of Ukraine, European allies, and U.S. national security interests. Richard Blumenthal demanded that the sanctions relief be immediately revoked, while Dick Durbin and Ron Wyden linked it to potential additional revenue for the Russian war machine.

Congressman Gabe Aimo of Rhode Island pointed out the contradiction between the stated goal of increasing sanctions pressure and Russia’s ability to profit from supplying fuel to the U.S.

Chuck Schumer called it a deal with the devil, a dirty deal that would help the very same Putin who is helping Iran target American soldiers in the Middle East. Schumer, Jean Shaheen, and Elizabeth Warren called it a complete betrayal of Ukraine, European allies, and America’s national security,
Rashkin said.

However, what caught the columnist’s attention most was the reaction of people who had previously supported Trump. He reviewed the comments under a video by a popular Russian-speaking blogger in the U.S., who, after the announcement of the diesel deal, suggested that peace was now closer.

The blogger even expressed hope that Putin would no longer be interested in a large-scale attack on Ukraine. However, the next day, Russia struck Zaporizhzhia, and critical comments began to appear under the video.

One user wrote that cheap diesel fuel had become more important than human lives. Another said he had voted for Trump three times, and yet another American stated that for the first time, he planned to support a candidate other than a Republican.

That’s the news. It’s not that Democrats are outraged, but that people in Trump’s camp have stopped keeping quiet. As long as their own people stay silent, everyone feels like they’re alone. Then one speaks up, then a second, then a third, and it turns out they’re not alone at all,
– Rashkin emphasized.

At the same time, there are still people among the U.S. president’s supporters who defend his decisions. Some of them point to European countries’ purchases of Russian energy resources, while others are convinced that any negotiations with the Kremlin are justified if they can help stop the loss of life.

Rashkin quoted a woman from Kharkiv who has been living in the U.S. for 37 years and wants the war to end as soon as possible, regardless of whether Putin is punished. The commentator acknowledged the understandability of her desire but emphasized that Russian attacks did not stop after the agreement was reached.

Ukraine also continued its strikes on Russian fuel infrastructure. According to Rashkin, a few hours after the agreement was announced, Ukrainian forces attacked one of the Russian fuel facilities, and Kyiv did not rule out further strikes on oil refineries.

The day after the diesel agreement was announced, Trump spoke with reporters near the White House before traveling to a rally in Tennessee. He was asked whether the new decision would contribute to the continuation of Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The U.S. president, however, accused Zelenskyy of being unwilling to end the hostilities. He claimed that the Ukrainian leader allegedly had many opportunities to reach an agreement but refused, and he also criticized Ukraine’s strikes on Russian oil refineries.

Trump explained his position by saying that damage to Russian oil refining facilities affects the global diesel fuel market and creates problems for American farmers and agricultural producers.

“We said, ‘Do whatever you want with Russia, just don’t strike the oil refineries, because that’s a problem for the whole world.’ But he wants to create problems for the world. He wants to create problems for our farmers and ranchers with diesel,”
– Trump stated.

Rashkin pointed out that Russian exports of petroleum products generate revenue for the Kremlin that can be used to finance the war. Therefore, he views the U.S. president’s calls not to attack oil refineries as an attempt to protect an economic sector that is vital to Russia.

The analyst also recalled a test previously proposed by journalist Vitaly Portnikov: if, after the midterm congressional elections on November 3, Trump continues to blame Ukraine for high diesel prices, it will mean that the issue goes beyond the election campaign.

However, the very next day after the agreement was announced, the U.S. president publicly linked the Ukrainian strikes to problems in the global fuel market. Rashkin suggested that Trump will now try to protect his own deal with Putin from Ukraine’s actions.

The most pointed part of the statement was the U.S. president’s call to change Ukraine’s leadership. Trump suggested that Ukrainians find a new leader who, in his view, would be able to negotiate an end to the war.

“I suggest they find a new leader who can strike a deal, because he could have struck many deals, but for some reason never does. And I think it’s time for Ukraine to elect a new president,”
Trump said.

Rashkin called these remarks an attempt to address the Ukrainian people directly, bypassing Zelenskyy. However, under martial law, holding presidential elections in Ukraine is not provided for by current legislation, so it is impossible to act on such a call under the current circumstances.

The U.S. president also claimed that Ukraine had allegedly lost 30% of its territory, and that the death toll from the war had exceeded 2 million people. The analyst disputed these figures and emphasized that Trump once again failed to name the Russian invasion as the direct cause of the war.

Rashkin explained his assessment based on personal experience as well. As a child in Moscow, he and his parents listened to “Voice of America” and “Radio Free Europe,” which emphasized the right of peoples to determine their own future.

“I grew up in Moscow. My parents and I used to listen to ‘Voice of America’ and ‘Radio Free Europe’ in the evenings. Back then, ‘Voice of America’ told the peoples, ‘Decide for yourselves.’ Today, the American president is telling the Ukrainian people whom not to elect,”
” Rashkin noted.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga responded that Zelenskyy has the support of the Ukrainian people, and that issues regarding the country’s political leadership should be decided by Ukrainians themselves.

Zelenskyy also recalled the consequences of Russian strikes following the U.S. decision on diesel fuel. He stated that Moscow “repaid” the easing of sanctions with five guided bombs dropped on residential buildings in Zaporizhzhia.

Criticism of the agreement came not only from representatives of the Democratic Party. An increasing number of Republicans are also publicly expressing their disagreement with Trump’s decision to ease restrictions on transactions involving Russian petroleum products.

Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers stated that no concessions should be made to Putin. Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska called the U.S. president’s decision a grave mistake, given the ongoing Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities.

Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska advocated for expanding domestic U.S. energy production rather than importing energy from Russia. Former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence also emphasized that Putin seeks not peace, but control over Ukraine.

Mike Rogers said of Putin: “You can’t give this man an inch.” Don Bacon called this a grave mistake by the president and added that sanctions against Russia are appropriate when it invades another country and bombs cities at night,
Rashkin reported.

The most concrete initiative was announced by Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. He stated his intention to introduce a bill banning the purchase of Russian oil and to ensure it is considered by the House of Representatives.

To this end, there is a special mechanism in the U.S. Congress that allows a bill to be brought to a vote without the Speaker’s support. If 218 members of the House of Representatives sign the relevant petition, the bill can be considered even against the leadership’s wishes.

Fitzpatrick and Bacon have already used a similar procedure during the consideration of aid to Ukraine. However, the mechanism itself does not guarantee the bill’s passage, as it must also pass the Senate and overcome a potential presidential veto.

“This isn’t a law that will overturn everything tomorrow. It’s a signal. Republicans are starting to say ‘no’ out loud. As long as their own people remain silent, everyone feels like they’re alone. Then one speaks up, then a second, then a third,”
– Rashkin emphasized.

Until the midterm elections, the House of Representatives, as the analyst noted, had no plans to convene for a vote on the matter. Therefore, he does not expect the decision on Russian diesel to be repealed anytime soon, although he considers the very fact of open criticism from members of Trump’s party to be significant.

Rashkin also cited the assessment of historian Phillips O’Brien, who wrote that U.S. policy is shifting from obstructing Ukraine to openly aiding Russia. According to the commentator, the increasingly visible disputes among Republicans indicate that some politicians are not prepared to support new economic concessions to the Kremlin while the war continues.

Yuriy Rashkin on Trump’s diesel deal with Putin: watch the video