"Two More Years of Trump – and Russia Will Be Finished": Zagorodniy on the US Oil Conflict and Starlink

Following the U.S. midterm congressional elections, Donald Trump faced new political challenges, and his attempt to influence gas prices using Russian diesel did not yield the expected results. At the same time, the Kremlin continues to hope for agreements with Washington, even as American energy companies are increasingly pushing Russia out of global markets.

Taras Zagorodniy, managing partner of the National Anti-Crisis Group, explained on 24 Channel why he considers Donald Trump one of the most anti-Russian U.S. presidents, despite his controversial decisions regarding Ukraine. He also discussed how limitations on Starlink could affect the reputation of American weapons, why the Kremlin risks losing oil revenues, and what might change after the U.S. elections.

Why Trump’s diesel deal fell through

Donald Trump previously linked fuel price problems to Ukraine, but now he claims Iran is responsible. Why has his position changed so much?

His thinking has likely shifted. In fact, he began talking about Iran about a week ago, when it became clear that the Russian diesel fuel story wasn’t working.

Trump had hoped that the mere announcement of large future shipments of diesel fuel would influence the market and help lower prices. But that didn’t happen. Prices didn’t react the way he had hoped.

This was followed by intense criticism in the American media. Moreover, the initiative was condemned by both Republicans and Democrats.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy also made frequent appearances on American television. In particular, he spoke about Iran’s role in the current situation on the fuel market, and, surprisingly, Trump did not like this at all.

About a week later, the topic of Russian diesel had virtually disappeared from his public statements. Now he is trying to explain to American voters why gasoline and diesel prices remain high.

Moreover, we still don’t know whether this Russian diesel will actually make it to the United States. Look at how tankers are changing their routes in the Atlantic Ocean. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the Russians will eventually have to sell this fuel somewhere in Brazil at a significantly lower price.

Trump wanted a quick result he could show voters. But instead of lower prices, he got a new political problem that he is now forced to explain.

Will the Kremlin’s plans change after the U.S. election?

Bloomberg reports that following the Republicans’ defeat in the election, the Kremlin may intensify its attacks on Ukraine. Moscow allegedly no longer believes that Trump will force Kyiv to agree to Russia’s terms, so Putin plans to drag out the war and put pressure on Europe. How likely is this, and what will change in U.S. policy now?

Bloomberg reported what was already obvious. Putin intended to continue the war regardless of the outcome of the U.S. election.

It makes no fundamental difference whether Republicans control Congress or Democrats hold the majority. The Russian dictator would not abandon his plans simply because of a change in the political situation in Washington.

As long as Putin remains in power, he will try to wage war. Another scenario is possible if Ukraine brings the Russian economy to a point where the Kremlin no longer has the resources to continue the war.

And here I see a problem in our constant reliance on decisions made by other countries. We’re always asking how U.S. policy will change, what Trump will do, and how the Democrats will act.

But we need to create the conditions ourselves under which it will be in the Americans’ interest to help Ukraine.

Right now, there are some pretty good opportunities for this. And Trump himself created some of them through his mistakes in the run-up to the election.

The first mistake was the Russian diesel fuel issue. In effect, the U.S. president acted against the interests of his own oil and gas industry.

American energy companies have no interest in seeing Russian oil and gas return to international markets. They themselves seek to capture those markets and sell their own energy resources.

Ukraine’s interests here largely coincide with those of American producers. When we strike at Russian oil infrastructure, it weakens a competitor of American companies.

That is precisely why, in my opinion, the Trump administration did not pose any serious obstacles to Ukraine’s attacks on Russian oil refineries for a long time.

The second mistake proved even more dangerous for the United States itself. I’m referring to the restrictions on satellite systems, on which the Ukrainian military’s capabilities depended.

The Starlink incident has already affected the global perception of American technology. Now, based on my observations, officials in Washington are trying to shift the blame for these decisions onto one another.

I suspect that the political decision may have come from Trump himself. But they will most likely try to pin the blame for the consequences on Pete Hagseth and Elon Musk.

Moreover, Musk seems to already understand the situation he finds himself in. His frustration is clearly evident in his posts on the social media platform X.

But for Ukraine, the most important thing isn’t even who Washington will pin the blame on. What matters far more is what impact this story will have on future U.S. decisions regarding military aid.

How Starlink Has Tarnished the Reputation of American Weapons

American military technology is in demand around the world not only because of its performance. Countries buy it because they count on stable supplies, long-term maintenance, and the fulfillment of agreements.

Now imagine a situation where a country has purchased American equipment, fully integrated it into its own defense system, and then, at some point, its operation is restricted due to a political decision.

What conclusions will European countries draw from this? Why should they buy weapons if they cannot be sure that their use won’t be blocked tomorrow?

This issue is no longer limited to Ukrainian-American relations. It concerns the United States’ reputation as a supplier of military technology.

One of the main commodities America sells to the world is security. And if doubts arise about the U.S.’s ability to guarantee the reliability of its own defense solutions, this could affect entire international markets.

For Ukraine, this situation opens up certain opportunities. We must more actively develop our own arms production, apply our own technologies, and continue to strike at Russian territory.

Once the American military-industrial complex sees that Ukraine is capable of achieving results on its own and winning with European support, attitudes toward us will begin to change.

Then American manufacturers will be interested in joining this process rather than standing on the sidelines. After all, this concerns future contracts, the reputation of their weapons, and their place in the global market.

We must use these circumstances to our advantage, rather than simply waiting to see who wins the next U.S. election.

Americans are pragmatic. When they see that a certain side is capable of winning, it is much more advantageous for them to support that side.

And our task is to ensure that the United States increasingly understands the benefits of supporting Ukraine. Then Washington will have fewer opportunities to evade fulfilling its commitments.

Why Trump Might Be More Dangerous for Russia Than Biden

Back in September, Russian propagandists openly stated that the Kremlin needed to help Trump retain power after the election. However, the Republicans suffered a serious defeat. Why did the Russians count so heavily on the American president?

First, Trump remains president. The results of the congressional elections do not mean he will leave the White House tomorrow.

And second, I consider Donald Trump to be the most anti-Russian U.S. president of the past 35 years.

And this may sound surprising, especially when looking at his public statements or specific decisions regarding Ukraine. But we must evaluate not only his words but also how the global economy is changing.

It was under Trump that the Americans began very actively pushing Russia out of international oil and gas markets. This applies first and foremost to Europe.

Previously, Russia derived enormous revenues from supplying energy resources to European countries. Now, American companies occupy a significant portion of this market.

And for the Kremlin, this is a far more serious problem than any of Trump’s harsh remarks.

Without substantial oil and gas revenues, it will be extremely difficult for Russia to sustain its economy – let alone finance a protracted war.

In my opinion, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were much more accommodating to the Russians on this issue. They focused on green energy and restricted the expansion of U.S. oil and gas production.

Trump, on the other hand, supports expanding production. American companies are increasing their presence in international markets and pushing out competitors.

The next major focus is India. The U.S. may increase pressure on New Delhi, seeking to reduce its purchases of Russian energy resources.

The Russians are hoping for agreements with Trump, but they fail to take into account that his economic policy runs counter to their long-term interests.

They speak of some success in the Anchorage talks and mention possible political agreements. But what can they offer the Americans?

Oil? The U.S. has its own oil, and they want to sell it themselves. Gas? American companies are already actively supplying it to international markets.

Therefore, talk of major economic concessions on Russia’s part does not seem convincing.

The Kremlin, of course, benefits from instability in the U.S. The Russian leadership wants the president and Congress to be constantly at odds, wasting energy on internal disputes and paying less attention to Russian aggression.

But even under these circumstances, American energy companies aren’t going anywhere. Their interests remain the same – to enter new markets and make a profit.

In my opinion, two more years of Trump – and that will be the end of Russia for good. He has already done a significant portion of the work by pushing Russia out of the European energy market.

The question now is how successfully the U.S. will be able to operate in other areas, primarily in India.

I estimate that India accounts for roughly half of Russia’s oil exports. If the Kremlin loses this market as well, the financial consequences will be extremely severe.

Russia may not have enough funds left not only to continue the war but also to maintain its own infrastructure.

And this is where the interests of Ukraine and the American oil and gas industry align. Ukrainian strikes are weakening the Russian energy sector, while American companies have the opportunity to expand their presence in international markets.

Is Trump Really Acting in the Kremlin’s Interests?

But Russian propagandists continue to convince their audience that Trump is on their side. Don’t the agreements regarding Russian diesel fuel give them reason to believe this?

I disagree with this approach. And what I’m saying isn’t just speculation – I’m basing my argument on specific economic trends.

Look at what happened with this diesel story. Trump was trying to quickly lower fuel prices, which is why he started talking about possible supplies from Russia.

But prices didn’t go down. What’s more, this initiative drew criticism within the U.S. because it ran counter to the interests of the American oil and gas industry.

That’s why Trump very quickly stopped mentioning it.

Russian propaganda takes a single statement by the American president and presents it as a major victory for the Kremlin. But if we assess the actual economic processes, the situation looks quite different.

American companies have already significantly strengthened their positions in Europe. The U.S. is also seeking to expand its influence on energy markets in other regions, particularly Brazil.

It is these processes that we need to focus on, rather than how Russian propagandists interpret yet another statement by Trump.

Did the Starshield restrictions help Russia?

But how, then, should we assess the suspension of intelligence sharing with Ukraine and the Starshield restrictions? Didn’t such decisions by the Trump administration actually help Russia?

It is important to remember that restrictions on military aid to Ukraine existed under previous U.S. administrations as well.

Following the Kharkiv and Kherson operations in 2022, in my opinion, the Biden administration sought to prevent the further weakening of Russia. We faced restrictions on arms deliveries and on authorizations to use certain U.S. systems.

In particular, there were long-standing restrictions on the use of HIMARS to strike certain Russian targets, even when those targets were located on Ukrainian territory.

Therefore, I do not believe that Trump’s controversial decisions should be viewed in isolation from the entire history of U.S. policy toward Russia.

So you believe that previous U.S. presidents also made decisions that benefited Russia?

Yes. For a very long time, the United States has been interested in preserving Russia as a great power.

One can even recall U.S. aid to Russia during the famine at the end of the 19th century. Later, the United States also aided the Bolshevik state.

For a long time, Russia was an important element of American foreign policy. And this influenced the decisions of various administrations.

Think back to 2014. Who restricted arms supplies to Ukraine after the start of Russian aggression? At that time, Obama and Biden were in power, not Trump.

Therefore, I am not going to make excuses for the current U.S. president. But I also do not think it is right to forget the decisions of his predecessors.

At the same time, it is precisely in the Trump administration that I see a very serious contradiction.

On the one hand, it is pursuing an economic policy that undermines the foundation of Russia’s revenue. On the other hand, it is trying to preserve opportunities for agreements with the Kremlin and prevent its complete weakening.

But achieving both goals at the same time is practically impossible.

What Russia Lacks to Continue the War

If the Trump administration simultaneously weakens Russia economically and tries to negotiate with it, how might this play out for the Kremlin?

In my opinion, the collapse of the Russian economy. The Americans have already gone so far in the battle for energy markets that it will be extremely difficult to turn back the clock.

Right now, Russia doesn’t need declarations of friendship or talk of agreements in Anchorage. It needs money.

I estimate its need at no less than $100 billion in liquid funds, which must be secured in the near future to stabilize the financial situation.

But who will give it that money? China has no intention of simply financing the Russian economy. Europe is even less interested in providing the Kremlin with such resources.

Restoring oil and gas supplies to Europe to their former levels also seems practically impossible.

Even if there are politicians in Germany who advocate for the return of Russian energy resources, that does not mean their plans can be implemented.

One must take into account the position of American companies that already occupy this market, as well as the position of Ukraine, which has its own capabilities to influence Russian oil infrastructure and supply routes.

The Kremlin may be hoping that Trump will help restore lost revenue. But the Americans have no reason to voluntarily give up markets they have already secured.

A separate issue is the future of major Russian energy companies. I believe that U.S. legislative and sanctions mechanisms could complicate the sale of Rosneft and Gazprom assets to Chinese entities.

After all, the United States itself has a vested interest in who controls these assets and how the international energy market will develop.

As a result, Russia faces a very difficult situation. Its oil revenues are shrinking, some of its traditional markets have already been lost, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find new major sources of financing.

Ukraine could exacerbate these problems by continuing to strike at Russian oil infrastructure.

And here we return once again to the restrictions on Starlink and Starshield. The U.S. administration has attempted to exploit Ukraine’s dependence on its technologies, but in doing so has created serious risks to the reputation of its own military-industrial complex.

We need to work in such a way that, in the future, both Congress and the U.S. president will have a stake in Ukraine’s success – rather than simply waiting to see which of them will make the decision we need next time.

What Happened to the Tankers Carrying Russian Diesel Fuel

Of the three tankers carrying Russian diesel fuel that were heading to the U.S. last week, only one continued toward the American coast. According to MarineTraffic, the second entered the Mediterranean Sea, and the third changed its destination to Brazil. Another tanker, which loaded about 40,000 metric tons of diesel in Primorsk, is awaiting further instructions. Do you think this fuel will make it to the U.S.?

I don’t think it will.

The Russians are now forced to look for other buyers. I wouldn’t rule out that they’ll eventually sell their diesel fuel at significantly lower prices – perhaps even for about half the original cost.

This fuel has become politically toxic. And now the question is not only who is willing to buy it, but also how profitable and safe it is to do so.

How will Trump explain to American voters why the promised Russian fuel never arrived?

That’s Trump’s problem. Why should we worry about him? Let his administration explain why it got involved in this and failed to achieve the desired result.

Before that, things were going quite well for Ukraine. We weren’t facing the same obstacles to striking the Russian oil industry that we had encountered earlier.

Remember 2024, when Ukraine was just beginning to actively attack Russian oil refineries with drones. At that time, the Biden administration reacted very sharply to these strikes.

Pentagon officials even emphasized that oil refineries are part of civilian infrastructure. For Ukraine, such statements created additional political pressure.

Trump did not raise this issue so actively for a long time. In my opinion, the reason lies in the interests of American energy companies that support the Republican Party.

They do not want Russian oil on global markets. They want to sell energy resources themselves and profit from it.

That is precisely why Ukraine must take advantage of the current alignment of economic interests.

The Russians are mistaken in hoping that Trump’s arrival automatically means decisions favorable to them. They were already celebrating his victory during his first presidential term, but in the end, they got completely different results.

And now, in my opinion, they’re once again missing the point. Economic competition between the U.S. and Russia hasn’t gone anywhere, and in the energy sector, it’s becoming increasingly dangerous for the Kremlin.

Starlink and Starshield have dealt a blow to the reputation of U.S. weapons: watch the video