11
In the space of barely two weeks, the politics of the war in Ukraine have been turned on their head. A US president who only weeks ago signed sweeping new sanctions against Russia has struck a fuel deal with the Kremlin, openly suggested that Ukraine needs a new leader, and warned Kyiv to end the war or face serious consequences. Meanwhile, his special envoy has sat down with Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg and returned with Moscow’s “in principle” agreement to three-way peace talks.
To the White House, this is hard-nosed deal-making aimed at ending a war that has dragged on for nearly five years. To Ukraine and much of Europe, it looks like something closer to abandonment. Understanding which reading proves correct may determine not only Ukraine’s future, but the credibility of the Western alliance itself.
The diesel deal that changed the mood
The turning point came on October 9, when President Donald Trump announced that Russia would immediately supply hundreds of thousands of tonnes of diesel to the United States, with millions more to follow. The motivation was largely domestic. American diesel prices have risen sharply over the past year, partly due to turmoil in the Middle East, and with midterm elections approaching, the administration is under pressure to bring them down.
The deal reversed, at a stroke, nearly five years of coordinated Western efforts to squeeze Russia’s energy revenues. Estimates suggest it could bring Moscow several billion dollars, though energy analysts argue the financial benefit to Russia will be modest and the effect on global prices negligible. If so, the deal may deliver little to American drivers while handing Putin something more valuable than money: a visible crack in Western unity.
Washington’s rationale was linked to Ukraine’s own strategy. Kyiv has been striking Russian oil refineries with long-range drones, and US envoys reportedly told Ukrainian officials that Trump wanted those attacks to stop. In the administration’s framing, the temporary easing of sanctions on Russian diesel is economic leverage meant to coax Moscow toward ending the war.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy saw it differently, calling the arrangement a weak decision that would allow Russia to keep killing Ukrainians. The deal was announced after a week in which Russian strikes reportedly killed more than 100 Ukrainian civilians, including at least 20 children. Trump’s response was to say that Zelenskyy could have settled the war many times and that Ukraine should consider new leadership and fresh elections.
Pressure on the battlefield
The tension has not been limited to words. In October, Ukraine’s access to satellite communications on the Starlink network was reportedly restricted in ways that rendered some of its interceptor and offensive drones ineffective, apparently as part of the same effort to halt strikes on Russia’s oil industry. Zelenskyy described the slowdown as a dangerous surprise. The White House has denied ordering any restriction, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio assured Zelenskyy that Trump had issued no order to harm Ukraine. After talks in Oslo, Zelenskyy said that important US intelligence sharing had been restored.
Whatever the precise chain of decisions, the message received in Kyiv was unmistakable: American support, long treated as a pillar of Ukraine’s defence, has become conditional and negotiable.
Diplomacy in two capitals
On October 20, US special envoy Steve Witkoff met Zelenskyy in Oslo, alongside the prime ministers of Norway and Finland and representatives of the EU and NATO. Zelenskyy proposed that the next step should be a trilateral meeting between himself, Trump and Putin. A day later, on his ninth trip to Russia, Witkoff met Putin, who signalled in-principle support for three-way talks and thanked Trump for his efforts. Russia released a detained American citizen as a goodwill gesture before the meeting.
Putin also used the occasion to widen the agenda, offering help on Iran’s nuclear programme and large fertiliser supplies to American farmers, and discussing a possible meeting with Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in China next month. That last prospect alarms European capitals, which fear a settlement shaped by Washington, Moscow and Beijing over the heads of Ukraine and Europe alike.
The core disagreement remains untouched
For all the diplomatic motion, the fundamentals have barely shifted. Russia still demands territory and guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO. Ukraine, backed by its European partners, refuses to surrender land and continues to seek membership of both the EU and NATO. Washington has already blocked Ukraine’s NATO path, and the alliance’s attention under this administration has focused heavily on raising members’ defence spending toward the 5 percent target agreed at The Hague in 2025.
This is the central weakness of the current approach. Pressure applied almost entirely to one side of a negotiation tends to produce one of two outcomes: capitulation by the weaker party or a hardening of its resolve. Ukraine has so far shown little sign of the former. Meanwhile, Moscow has every reason to conclude that patience pays, and that Western cohesion can be eroded by waiting.
The case for the administration
It would be unfair to dismiss the White House’s approach out of hand. Supporters argue that years of Western sanctions and arms deliveries have not produced a Russian defeat, that the front lines have been largely static, and that only direct leverage on both parties can break the deadlock. They point out that Putin has at least agreed in principle to talks involving Ukraine, a format Moscow had long rejected. And they argue that Europe, having relied on American power for decades, must now carry more of the burden of its own security.
These arguments carry weight in Washington and among parts of the American public weary of foreign commitments. The question is whether the method is likely to deliver a durable peace or merely a pause on Russia’s terms.
What is at stake for Europe and NATO
For Europe, the implications go far beyond Ukraine. If American security commitments can be adjusted in exchange for lower fuel prices or a summit with Moscow, European governments must ask what that means for their own defence. The alliance’s deterrent rests not only on weapons and budgets but on the belief, shared by friend and adversary alike, that its members will stand together. Every visible rift between Washington and Kyiv chips away at that belief.
European leaders have so far insisted on continued military and financial support for Ukraine and warned against rushing into talks on Moscow’s timetable. But words must now be matched by capacity. If Washington steps back, Europe will have to decide quickly whether it can sustain Ukraine largely on its own.
A defining moment
The coming weeks may prove decisive. A three-way meeting, a possible summit in China, and the trajectory of US support will shape whether the war moves toward a negotiated end or a settlement that rewards aggression. Ending the bloodshed is a goal every side claims to share. The real test is whether the peace that emerges can last, and whether the countries that promised to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty are still prepared to honour that promise when the price rises.
