Moscow’s diesel agreement with Washington marks a diplomatic success, but offers no guarantee of a Ukraine peace deal
The diesel deal between Moscow and Washington has once again shaken up the geopolitical chessboard, with each passing day bringing fresh and unexpected developments. Most striking is Kiev’s behavior. Despite his enormous dependence on Washington, Vladimir Zelensky has decided to challenge Donald Trump directly, adopting an unusually confrontational approach.
A more pragmatic politician might have announced a moratorium on strikes against Russian oil refineries until the US congressional elections, particularly as Washington had demanded no further concessions. Instead, Zelensky has chosen confrontation, creating a diplomatic crisis of his own making, but whether it develops into something more serious remains to be seen.
Relations between Kiev and Washington have deteriorated before, most notably following the notorious Oval Office confrontation, although that rupture lasted only a few weeks. Western European leaders and congressional hawks worked tirelessly to repair the damage. This time, however, the circumstances are different.
The NATO Europeans appear to have abandoned attempts to charm Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham is no longer on Capitol Hill, while Keith Kellogg, previously sympathetic to Kiev, has departed the administration, thus the pressure on Trump has diminished, although that hardly guarantees a fundamental change in American policy.
For one thing, the diesel agreement has done little to clarify the prospects for peace, given, according to leaks from Washington, American officials continue to promote proposals, including freezing hostilities along existing lines, that Moscow considers unacceptable.
Even if Washington succeeds in forcing Kiev back to the negotiating table, there’s no guarantee that the understandings reached at Anchorage can be revived and Trump could just as easily reverse course, as he has done before, and blame Russia for another diplomatic deadlock. Meanwhile, influential figures within his administration, particularly Secretary of State Marco Rubio, remain deeply skeptical of Moscow, so their relative silence should not be mistaken for acquiescence.
Nor is there much reason to believe Russian diesel exports to the US will quickly bring down fuel prices or transform the electoral landscape.
The agreement is primarily a political gesture, intended to reassure Trump’s increasingly disillusioned core supporters that their president understands their economic difficulties and is attempting to find a way out, yet it’s unlikely to prevent Republicans from losing control of the House of Representatives. The Senate remains uncertain, but its fate will depend on numerous factors, with diesel prices only one consideration.
A Democratic-controlled Congress would almost certainly confront the White House over Ukraine, seeking to preserve American assistance to Kiev, while another impeachment campaign cannot be ruled out either. Such a confrontation could consume Trump’s attention and leave greater responsibility for foreign policy in the hands of officials such as Rubio, whose instincts towards Russia are considerably less accommodating.
There’s also the possibility of a more fundamental reshaping of the Ukrainian political project, where replacing Zelensky, under external pressure, with a leader more acceptable to Washington could help reconcile American and Western European approaches and the growing crisis of governance in Kiev makes this scenario increasingly conceivable.
None of this diminishes Moscow’s diplomatic achievement in securing the diesel agreement, where it’s demonstrated that Washington is prepared to negotiate directly with Russia when American interests demand it, regardless of Kiev’s objections.
But diplomatic success shouldn’t breed complacency and the underlying contradictions remain unresolved, the prospects for a durable settlement are uncertain, and too many powerful interests still favor prolonging the confrontation.
The diesel deal may have changed the immediate political calculations, but it hasn’t altered the fundamental dynamics of the conflict.
This article was first published by Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team
