"The World Faces a Fuel Crisis": Savostyanov on Trump's Deal with Russia

Donald Trump announced a possible energy truce and supported allowing trade in Russian diesel fuel. At the same time, Ukraine continues to resist Russian aggression, while the war in the Middle East is exacerbating fuel shortages and creating new challenges for the global energy market.

In an exclusive interview with Channel 24, Yevgen Savostyanov explained why the U.S. president’s initiatives may not yield the expected results and how Ukraine should respond to Washington’s proposals. The conversation also touched on the political risks for Trump, frozen Russian assets in Europe, and Saudi Arabia’s military challenges.

Trump’s idea of a ceasefire runs counter to Ukraine’s interests

Volodymyr Zelenskyy pointed out that Trump wants to negotiate with Putin over Russian diesel fuel, even though Ukrainian strikes are significantly disrupting the operations of Russian oil refineries. At the same time, Ukraine is being pressured to stop these attacks. Aren’t such agreements yet another attempt to force Kyiv to capitulate?

I do not see any direct intention on the part of the United States to force Ukraine to capitulate. The Americans are putting forward various proposals that may be perceived in Ukraine precisely as terms of surrender. Perhaps Washington views them as a path to ending the war, but for us, they are unacceptable.

We have said many times that the current negotiations are practically meaningless. In my opinion, they will only have real substance when Ukraine begins striking thermal power plants in Moscow and Yekaterinburg. Until then, talk of a ceasefire will remain a waste of time.

Right now, people are traveling, meeting, and discussing various issues. Perhaps they’re even resolving some personal issues. But I believe this is a dead-end path.

At the same time, an interesting opportunity has arisen for Ukraine and Europe to capitalize on Trump’s own statements. One of the distinctive features of his foreign policy is what I call the “X-policy.” He often first announces certain decisions on social media platform X, and only later tries to implement them in practice.

This is exactly what happened with his statement about an energy truce. Ukraine and Europe effectively responded that they were ready to support such an initiative. Zelenskyy also noted that on that day, Ukraine did not carry out any strikes against Russian oil refineries.

And what about Russia? Moscow has not confirmed its readiness for such a truce. However, Sergey Lavrov has already responded, stating that Zelenskyy does not deserve any truce.

But the proposal did not come from Zelenskyy, but from Trump. Therefore, this situation should be leveraged in diplomatic efforts: the U.S. president proposed an energy ceasefire, Ukraine agreed, and Russia is rejecting it. If the Kremlin refuses, it is necessary to bring this to Washington’s attention and intensify political pressure.

Behind this story lies a much more serious problem. The global fuel market is experiencing a major imbalance, which is unlikely to disappear after the U.S. elections unless the United States manages to resolve the Iranian issue.

The fact that the authorization to trade in Russian diesel fuel is valid for approximately half a year, in my opinion, indicates Washington’s lack of confidence in the rapid restoration of full-scale operations in the Strait of Hormuz and the security of oil refineries in the Persian Gulf.

As one of the largest energy exporters, Russia could theoretically help restore balance to the global market. But it is waging war against Ukraine, which is forced to defend itself. Therefore, Ukrainian interests and the Trump administration’s economic plans have come into direct conflict.

In theory, the U.S. president could offer Ukraine a large number of Patriot systems and other military support in exchange for halting attacks on Russian oil refineries. It’s even possible to imagine such a scenario: the U.S. helps Ukraine in other areas but asks that diesel production not be targeted.

Although, to be honest, I don’t really understand how such an agreement could be implemented.

When a country is waging a protracted military campaign, it’s crucial not to change its strategy. From the very beginning of Ukraine’s strikes on Russian oil refineries, I’ve said that this course of action must continue. Ukraine has acted consistently and achieved significant results.

And now Trump is trying to divert Kyiv from this campaign. However, I do not see this as an attempt to force Ukraine’s surrender. If the U.S. president had such a goal, he could have long ago begun denying Ukraine weapons, intelligence, and other forms of support.

Instead, the supplies have continued. The problem is that diesel fuel has become a very sensitive issue for Trump. He wants to show his voters that he is personally fighting to lower prices. His political strategy is understandable, but it completely contradicts Ukraine’s interests.

The diesel deal won’t save Trump from the fuel crisis

The decision regarding Russian diesel is already raising questions in Congress, as there are legislative restrictions on the purchase of Russian energy resources. At the same time, the midterm elections are approaching, after which the Democrats may strengthen their positions. Could this deal become a serious political problem for Trump, especially given the high fuel prices?

Unfortunately, I don’t expect the situation to improve significantly before the election. Perhaps after the vote, political tensions will subside somewhat and a new dynamic will emerge.

However, I constantly emphasize that we’re talking about elections in specific districts. The president’s personal popularity influences the results, but it isn’t the decisive factor. There are a number of trends that could lead to a completely different outcome than is currently predicted.

Therefore, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume the Democrats will secure a majority in Congress. We still have to get through this pre-election period.

I think there will be a lot of high-profile statements, disputes, and political noise in the near future. But each side will continue to pursue its own policies. I don’t think Ukraine will stop striking Russia, since Russia won’t stop attacking Ukraine. This is a war, not armchair politics.

The potential delivery of 300,000 metric tons of Russian diesel fuel has very little significance for the course of hostilities. For the global market, this volume is also insufficient to change the situation.

I looked at the market’s initial reaction following reports of the deal. It was largely speculative; prices reacted to expectations, but no sustained downward trend emerged. And this is understandable, since the diesel fuel shortage hasn’t gone anywhere.

In fact, the world is facing a very serious fuel crisis. It cannot be resolved by a few small agreements.

What does 300,000 metric tons of diesel amount to? Even if we take the maximum volume being discussed for half a year – 4.8 million metric tons – that’s roughly 30 million barrels. For the global fuel market, that’s very little.

Trump appealed to Europe to release 100 million metric tons of diesel fuel from its strategic reserves. According to my estimates, this amounts to roughly one-third of Europe’s strategic reserves.

If the Europeans had agreed at the time, perhaps the current frenzy over diesel fuel could have been avoided. But even that decision would not have resolved the long-term problems of the global market.

The shortage is now enormous. Oil refineries located outside the areas of the Russia-Ukraine war and the hostilities in the Persian Gulf are unable to fully meet global demand.

Significant volumes of diesel fuel used to come from these two regions. Now, due to military operations, production and supply are under serious pressure, and the capacity of other refineries is insufficient to fully compensate for the losses.

Therefore, in my opinion, we are facing very serious problems with the balance of supply and demand. And these problems cannot be solved simply by allowing the sale of Russian diesel.

Russia Must Pay for the War with Its Own Assets

The head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, reported on discussions regarding the possibility of seizing frozen Russian assets, a significant portion of which is located in Belgium. Will Europe be able to continue financing support for Ukraine without using these funds?

I believe seizing Russian assets is an entirely logical decision. Why should Europe pay for Russia’s war against Ukraine? Russia must pay for this war.

Therefore, this money must be seized and put to use. I have even proposed a specific plan that could help resolve this issue.

In my opinion, a separate entity should be created to purchase the right to manage the frozen funds from the Belgian company Euroclear. This would allow the relevant obligations to be transferred to another entity that could then work with these assets.

The problem is that Euroclear’s management and the Belgian authorities, as I suspect, are seriously concerned for their safety. I do not rule out the possibility that they may have received threats.

Therefore, a mechanism is needed that would allow the right to manage the assets and the associated obligations to be transferred to another entity.

I consider this necessary, appropriate, and reasonable. There is no contradiction here between economic expediency and morality. Russia started the war, so it is Russia’s funds that must be used to compensate for the damages caused.

It’s truly not easy for Europeans right now. Elections are coming up in France, and domestic political processes in European countries are affecting the willingness to make difficult decisions.

However, I am surprised by how slowly the issue of Russian assets is progressing. It seems that European politicians understand the need to use these assets, but they are acting very slowly and indecisively.

The Houthis have exposed Saudi Arabia’s defense vulnerabilities

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the main challenges facing the global energy market. At the same time, the Houthis are launching attacks on Saudi Arabia, which has purchased a significant amount of modern American weaponry. Why can’t Riyadh effectively counter these attacks, and how will this affect oil prices?

Today, this is one of the decisive factors. Saudi Arabia has proven to be completely unprepared for war with the Houthis.

It has purchased a huge amount of modern American weaponry. The Saudi military has advanced systems, but having the equipment does not necessarily mean it is ready to use it effectively in real combat conditions.

I call this a “parade army.” It looks great when soldiers in smart uniforms take part in ceremonies, but real war requires a completely different kind of training.

There’s a saying that people who drive “Mercedes” don’t go to war. Of course, this isn’t a universal rule. In the United Kingdom, even members of the royal family have taken part in combat operations, but the Saudi military leadership, in my opinion, proved to be insufficiently prepared.

Let me remind you that in this conflict, it was Saudi Arabia, as I see it, that struck first. Its representatives were asked if they were prepared for such a turn of events, and they assured everyone that there would be no problems.

Now we see that they are struggling to effectively deploy their existing anti-missile systems and intercept Houthi missiles. For a country with such advanced capabilities, this is a very poor outcome.

The consequences are already being felt in the oil market. I attribute the recent rise in prices, in particular, to reports of an attack on the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia, one of the largest in the world. According to the information I have, a fire broke out there.

Saudi Arabia is now making demands of the Europeans and other partners, accusing them of providing insufficient assistance. But the partners do not want to fight on behalf of a country that possesses vast reserves of modern weaponry.

Formally, forces of Yemen’s national army are also fighting on Saudi Arabia’s side. However, they are still unable to cope with the Houthis and are facing serious difficulties.

There are even reports of plans to recruit fighters from Africa. To me, this is more a sign of desperation and an inability to resolve the problem on its own.

Iran is very actively using the Houthis to destabilize the oil market. This is part of its strategy, which is based on supporting allied armed groups outside its own territory.

Israel has launched powerful strikes against Hezbollah and Hamas, while Saudi Arabia still cannot cope with the Houthis. And this creates additional problems for the entire region.

We have already discussed the serious imbalance in the global diesel fuel market. But if Saudi Arabia continues to demonstrate an inability to protect its own oil infrastructure, similar problems could intensify in the crude oil market in the near future.

Yevgen Savostyanov on the attacks on Russian oil refineries, Trump’s energy truce, and the confiscation of Russian assets: watch the video