Since US President Donald Trump announced the “diesel deal” with Russia, it seems that the Russian-Ukrainian war has entered a new turning point, entitled reconsidering the priorities of the main parties involved directly or indirectly, in light of the promotion of internal electoral interests in the United States, and the US administration’s willingness to exert greater pressure on the Ukrainians during the next stage.
Although the deal sparked a loud debate within the United States, and called for angry reactions in Europe and within Ukraine, it was noted that the Kremlin did not rush to announce official positions regarding it, and contented itself with a silent directive to the relevant departments in the country to work on providing the appropriate conditions for its success. Because it undermines one of the basic pillars of the sanctions imposed on the oil sector in Russia. This prompted the Minister of Energy, Alexander Novak, to announce the lifting of the ban on diesel exports, while trying to reassure the internal market that the deal “will not harm the needs of local consumers.” Note that Russia is internally facing a major shortage of fuel and diesel supplies.
Moscow took a second step towards consolidating its gain, by requiring the lifting of restrictions imposed on Russian companies to implement the terms of the deal.
But the most important dimension here came with the political repercussions of the deal and the return of American talk about the necessity of holding presidential elections to choose a new president for Ukraine, after the angry reaction of the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who saw the diesel deal as an “investment in war” and pledged to continue targeting Russian energy facilities as long as Moscow continues to target the energy infrastructure in his country.
This development presented a new dilemma for all parties supporting Ukraine. The elections, which were postponed for two years, cannot be held, as the Ukrainians say, under fire, and a comprehensive truce must be declared for at least two months for the election to succeed, according to Zelensky’s demand. This seems very unlikely in the current circumstances, especially since Washington failed even to impose a temporary truce in the energy sector, and the exchange of attacks between Moscow and Kiev on this sector continued even after the announcement of the diesel deal. So how will it succeed in getting the Kremlin to accept a comprehensive truce for at least two months?
This may be one of the most prominent files on the US-European dialogue table, which prompted Trump's advisors Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to cancel their expected visit to Moscow and Kiev to devote themselves to dialogue with the Europeans.
But the conditions do not seem appropriate for launching a broad truce and preparing for Ukrainian elections. At least this is what became clear immediately after the Kremlin’s strict response to the demand for a two-month truce, by announcing Putin’s willingness to stop the bombing on the day voters go to the polls only if Kiev shows seriousness in holding the elections.
The Kremlin announced, in response to a question about its position on Zelensky’s readiness to hold elections in Ukraine in the event of a 60-day ceasefire with Russia: “The Kremlin has repeatedly stressed - whether from President Putin or at other levels - that we do not want a ceasefire, but rather we want long-term peace, and we are ready to do everything in our power to achieve that.”
Between Zelensky's demands and the Kremlin's conditions, it seemed that the "diesel deal" maneuver and what followed brought new gains for Putin, as it forcefully re-raised the issue of the legitimacy of the Ukrainian presidency, without obligating Moscow to make concessions or stop the war. The Kremlin has also become convinced that the issue of US sanctions on the oil sector is on its way to being gradually dismantled.
This is what prompted Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov to announce “Moscow’s gratitude” for the efforts of American negotiators to resolve the crisis in Ukraine, in exchange for launching a strong campaign against the Europeans and accusing them once again of being part of the problem and not the solution.
Peskov said that Europe continues to do everything in its power to prevent the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, adding that the Europeans are more inclined towards war and seek to prolong the conflict. Reiterating his country’s position that the Europeans “are not part of the peace party.” Rather, they are closer to the war party.”
This talk anticipated new rounds of US-European talks to formulate a position on the files of the deal and the Ukrainian elections.
A few days ago, the city of Miami hosted talks between representatives of the United States, Ukraine, and the “European Troika” group, which includes Britain, Germany, and France, along with the European Commission and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
The next morning, it was announced that the talks had ended prematurely, and the second day that was scheduled for them was cancelled. Media sources reported that the talks were aimed at discussing a new comprehensive proposal to end the Ukrainian conflict, noting that they were stopped early after the US President announced, following a phone call with his Russian counterpart, that an agreement had been reached with Russia regarding diesel fuel.
According to sources reported by Axios, Witkoff and Kushner informed the Ukrainian side during the meeting that Washington may deny Kiev access to its intelligence information if it does not make concessions.
After recent developments, it seemed that the parties were preparing to resume talks to discuss mechanisms for dealing with the new situation. Axios reported that Witkopf and Kushner postponed their visit to Moscow until it became clear how willing Kiev and European countries were to support a new unified peace proposal before presenting it to Russia.
Pending clarification of the situation regarding possible understandings between Washington and European capitals, questions have arisen about Trump’s ability to impose the energy truce he announced without consulting the Russian and Ukrainian parties. On Sunday, Zelensky accused Russia of targeting energy facilities in Ukraine after Trump's surprise announcement.
Zelensky said after a conversation with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen: “The Russians struck a power plant in Kiev, and later, strikes targeted energy facilities in the Kharkiv region. All of this happened after the US President made his statement regarding a ceasefire in the energy sector.
Shortly after that, he indicated that there had been a strike targeting the “CHP-5” power station in the city of Kharkiv (east of the country), adding that “the Ukrainian airspace was full of (witness) planes all day,” referring to Iranian-designed drones.
The Ukrainian president warned that his country would respond to Russia if Moscow refused to agree to an energy truce during the winter. He said, on Monday, during a speech before the Warsaw Security Forum, that the American president’s announcement regarding the energy truce had raised real interest and hope in the possibility of the initiative’s success, stressing that Ukraine expressed its support for the idea as soon as it was presented. He added: “If Russia does not agree to an energy truce this winter, we will respond.”
In a related context, European Union foreign policy chief Kaya Kallas called for expanding the scope of the energy truce so that it is not limited to oil refineries, thus enhancing the chances of protecting more vital installations from attacks.
It also indicated that the European Union is preparing sanctions targeting 1,600 entities linked to Russian defense industries, as part of efforts aimed at increasing pressure on Moscow due to the war.
Callas confirmed, on Monday, on the “X” platform, “This is the largest expansion of our sanctions list since Russia began its war.” Europe once again shows its unity,” noting that “more than half of those subject to the sanctions are linked to the ballistic missile production chain.”
