From the Russian wheat deals of an earlier generation to a Trump–Putin diesel bargain, energy has become the latest instrument of high-stakes political dealmaking.
On October 9, Trump announced an agreement for Russian diesel supplies and Washington eased sanctions to facilitate imports. The announcement has triggered criticism in Congress, alarm in Kyiv, and a sharp rebuke from the EU’s foreign-policy chief, Kaja Kallas, who warned that relaxing restrictions could provide Moscow with additional revenue for its war against Ukraine.
Trump–Putin Diesel Deal.
Is this the Art of the Deal in action—or a short-term response to an energy crisis with potentially long-term geopolitical consequences? The immediate political calculation is clear enough: Trump needs relief from rising fuel costs, while Moscow stands to regain access to a market Washington has sought to restrict.
But whether the arrangement will meaningfully lower prices, and how much Russia will actually gain, remain open questions. Energy analysts have expressed doubts that the proposed volumes will substantially ease the broader supply squeeze.
And diesel is only one part of a much larger political drama. Israel heads to the polls on October 27, with Benjamin Netanyahu facing a consequential electoral test amid continuing scrutiny of the October 7, 2023, security failures and his ongoing corruption trial. His political future is uncertain; the suggestion that defeat automatically means imprisonment.
But before jumping to conclusions, just revisit his ability to have 9 political lives, as a cat. Meanwhile, allegations surrounding the reported airline hijacking, real, distraction; otherwise, timing is everything—especially when it comes to domestic political survival for Trump and many Republicans before November elections.
Commercial bargains impacting geopolitics
From wheat to diesel, the question is whether commercial bargains can reshape international politics—or whether the politics ultimately determine who profits from the bargain. With Washington, Moscow, Brussels, Kyiv and Jerusalem all facing their own pressures, this is a story worth watching well beyond the fuel market.
And the fuel is intended for the American and global markets, not exclusively for U.S. buyers. Further shipments have been promised, but the immediate effect on American prices is likely to be limited. Whether Russia can deliver everything announced, given refinery damage and its own domestic requirements, is another question.
So why make such a fuss over diesel?
The strongest alternative explanation is that the deal is also a message to Kyiv to back off.
Ukraine has continued striking Russian oil refineries, attacking infrastructure that Moscow needs to sustain its energy exports. Washington, meanwhile, depends on its own military assistance and intelligence relationship with Ukraine to shape the course of the war. The diesel announcement, accompanied by a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian fuel, puts those competing interests into unusually sharp relief.
Then came the unmistakable political signal. On October 10, Trump said it was time for Ukraine to get a new president, arguing that Zelensky had repeatedly passed up opportunities to settle the war. The timing matters: the remarks followed the diesel announcement and Trump’s criticism of Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries.
From Commercial Deal to Political Leverage
This is no longer simply a theory about what Washington might be communicating to Kyiv. Trump publicly connected his dissatisfaction with Zelensky to the question of Ukrainian leadership.
Did Trump also threaten to cut off weapons or intelligence? But he makes many threats, and time will tell the real impact. The broader message is unmistakable: Washington is asserting its own priorities, and Kyiv cannot assume that American support will remain insulated from disagreements over pragmatic strategy and election result back in the USA.
There too is a constitutional complication, too. Zelensky was elected in 2019; he is not an unelected leader in the sense of never having received an electoral mandate. His presidential term was due to expire in 2024, but martial law and the wartime suspension of elections have given him the excuse to hang-ONT-power without the inconvenient need for a democratic vote.
On October 11, Zelensky said he would organize elections if Russia agreed to a 60-day ceasefire. That exchange makes the question of leadership a live political issue, not merely a rhetorical sound bite.
EU is now upset
Meanwhile, the European Union is sharply criticizing the relaxation of sanctions, arguing that renewed Russian diesel revenue could help finance Moscow’s SMO against Ukraine. The irony is obvious: a deal promoted as a way to ease fuel prices could simultaneously weaken the political pressure Western governments have spent years trying to maintain.
And there is a final twist. Russia’s ability to meet the announced commitments should not be taken for granted. Ukrainian strikes have damaged Russian refining capacity, and domestic supply pressures complicate the export picture. Yet, it would be premature to conclude that Moscow has no diesel available to sell; analysts have also pointed to Russia’s established export capacity and surplus production. The actual shipments will tell us more than the announcements.
Cut through the rhetoric, and the diesel deal has at least three layers: an attempt to address American fuel-price pressures before the November midterms; a commercial opening for Russia despite the sanctions’ regime; and a political confrontation over Ukraine’s war strategy and leadership.
The diesel may or may not make a noticeable difference at the pump. Its political significance is already much harder to dismiss.
The real question is whether this is the Art of the Deal applied to energy—or a demonstration that, in Trump’s foreign policy, even a relatively small fuel transaction can become a lever in a much larger struggle over who sets the terms of geopolitical rivalries.
Commodities have long served as instruments of diplomacy, arm-twisting and political accommodation. I saw this firsthand in Georgia through the USDA’s Food for Peace program. Ostensibly designed to sell American agricultural products, principally vegetable oils and flour, and support agricultural development, the program had a far more troubling dimension.
I, personally, investigated the program, uncovered how funds intended for agricultural projects were being siphoned off, and traced their use to the purchase of weapons for Chechen terrorists. The investigative records, collected, are held by the U.S. government’s Office of Inspector General in Washington, USAID OIG, may now be available for public review. The findings were politically sensitive because their disclosure could have damaged American foreign-policy interests in the region.
It was a stark example of how a program presented as food assistance and agricultural development could become a mechanism for financing a very different political and military agenda.
The lesson remains relevant today: when governments use commodities to advance strategic interests, the stated purpose of a transaction and its ultimate beneficiaries may be two very different things.
Jeffrey K. Silverman is a freelance journalist and international development specialist, BSc, MSc, based for 30 years in Georgia and the former Soviet Union
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
