Faced with record diesel prices and with less than two months until the midterm elections, Donald Trump has returned to the default setting of his tumultuous and failed campaign to end the war in Ukraine: victim blaming. His timing could not be worse for Ukraine and more beneficial for Russia.
“Mr. Zelensky has to do one thing: He has to end the shutdown of diesel fuel production in Russia,” the US president told reporters on Sunday, referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “It’s having a negative impact on the world.”
President Trump’s stance has been inconsistent at best, coming less than a year after sources told CNN that the U.S. stepped up intelligence sharing with Ukraine to hit Russia’s energy facilities (when oil prices were low) and less than a week after he claimed (without mentioning the Ukraine war) that gasoline prices would fall once the Iran war ended.
Analysts say it is also wrong to claim that the price issue will be resolved if Ukraine stops attacking Russian refineries. Andy Lipow of Texas-based Lipow Oil Associates estimates that 800,000 barrels of diesel per day have been taken off the market as a result of Russia’s decision to ban exports in response to the attack on Ukraine. Meanwhile, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz affected 1.2 million barrels per day.
At worst, this is another betrayal for Kiev, which, facing a serious lack of air defense capabilities, is playing one of its few remaining cards, attacking the Russian military machine on Russian soil and the energy resources that power it. This betrayal is all the more painful in the midst of near-constant Russian drone and missile attacks, and in the face of a winter that Russia is openly planning to weaponize.
On Monday, President Trump claimed on Truth Social that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to stop attacking each other’s energy facilities (spoiler: they didn’t). The Kremlin’s subsequent response was a masterclass in twisting the truth to squeeze every last ounce of PR money out of it.
Start with a simple strategy. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, in comments apparently intended to appease Trump, called the proposal a “very good idea” and added: “We are in contact with the American side.” He also brought up the usual fiction to make Ukraine look bad, saying, “We always support a peaceful solution.”
Then comes the more subtle gambit of how to continue to portray Ukraine as the aggressor without overlooking the surface that the refinery attack is actually not that bad for Russia.
“Such a ceasefire would allow us to completely saturate the domestic market, which is now approaching complete saturation,” Peskov argued. “The issue is not production, but ensuring that these oil products have unhindered access to world markets.” That has allowed refineries to divert attention from Ukraine’s recent surge in attacks on Russian oil tankers. There was no mention of Russian attacks on commercial ships or Ukrainian ports.
And Peskov’s final salvo: “The second necessary step, of course, is to lift sanctions. Only then will the world have a sufficient supply of these petroleum products.”
The Kremlin may find a way out here. The United States temporarily lifted some sanctions against Russia earlier this year as the Iran war threatened oil supplies. It could also be an attempt to avoid the opposite outcome. This week, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on one of Russia’s largest banks because of its ties to Iran. At the same time, the U.S. House of Representatives moved closer to voting on a sweeping Russia sanctions bill co-authored by Sen. Lindsey Graham before his death in July.
For Zelensky, this must feel like whiplash. It was just over a week ago that President Trump’s diplomatic envoys hugged him, camera flashes blazing, in the middle of Kiev, on their long-promised first trip to Ukraine, raising hopes of renewed diplomatic momentum. The warning signs were there. They had gone to Russia first. President Trump then called President Putin, but not President Zelensky. And while the supply of Patriot interceptor missiles is still under consideration, President Trump said this week that he was considering a “less sophisticated version” for Kiev.
Even if we remove President Trump’s apparent personal preference for President Putin and the factual contradictions in his decision to blame Ukraine for diesel prices, we return to the central argument that has shaped this conflict from the beginning. How can we punish Russia, a systemically important oil producer, without punishing ourselves in the process? And will the determination to do so disappear when oil prices rise?
