One Misstep After Another: Trump's America Knocks on Putin's Door

By Yiannis Damellos and Mars Strangelove Jr.

October 11, 2026

Could anyone have imagined eight months ago, when Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu launched their attack on Iran, that just weeks before the U.S. midterm elections, the American president would be turning to Vladimir Putin for help in lowering diesel prices and improving his declining poll numbers? Even the most politically cynical observers might have struggled to foresee a president who presents himself as a defender of American strength seeking assistance from the Russian leader while the war rages and Ukraine is burning.

Donald Trump insists that his agreement with Putin will help bring down American diesel prices. The announcement was presented as a way to relieve pressure on American voters. Diesel prices have surged amid disruptions to global fuel supplies caused by the war with Iran and the continuing conflict in Ukraine. With congressional midterm elections approaching on November 3, higher costs for farmers, truckers and businesses have become an economic and political liability for the administration.

Yet the potential economic benefit of the diesel arrangement remains uncertain. What is clear is that Washington has eased restrictions on Russian diesel without securing a publicly established Russian concession in return.

It is an extraordinary reversal of expectations. The United States, which spent years trying to restrict Moscow's access to energy markets and the revenues that sustain its war against Ukraine, is now seeking cooperation with the Kremlin to address an energy problem aggravated by the administration's own decisions.

From Uncle Joe to Uncle Vlad?

It almost feels like 1944, before Winston Churchill's famous warning about the Iron Curtain, when many Americans knew Joseph Stalin as “Uncle Joe” and treated the Soviet Union as an indispensable wartime ally. But history has moved on since then, and the lessons of the Cold War have not disappeared simply because Trump seems willing to disregard them.

On October 9, Trump announced that Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 metric tons of diesel to the American and global markets, followed by another 500,000 tons in November, one million tons thereafter and a further three million tons within a period he did not specify. The U.S. Treasury subsequently issued a temporary authorization permitting certain transactions involving Russian-origin diesel through April 7, 2027.

That is a substantial volume of fuel. But the scale of the announcement should not be confused with its likely impact on American consumers.

The United States is itself a major diesel producer and exporter. The additional Russian supply is small relative to the scale of the American market, and analysts have questioned whether it could materially reduce domestic prices. Additional supplies might benefit particular buyers, but diesel prices also depend on global availability, refining capacity, distribution costs and expectations about future disruptions.

The immediate beneficiaries, therefore, may not be the American farmers, truckers and consumers whom Trump says he intends to help.

Moscow Gains an Economic Opening as Ukraine Faces More Pressure

For Russia, the arrangement offers an opportunity to resume or expand diesel exports after restrictions imposed amid domestic shortages and Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries. If the announced shipments are delivered and sold commercially, Russian producers and exporters can earn revenue. Depending on the companies involved and the applicable tax arrangements, the Russian state may also benefit.

The political implications could be even more significant than the immediate volume of fuel. Western sanctions were intended to constrain the resources available to Moscow as it continued its war against Ukraine. Easing restrictions without securing a corresponding Russian commitment to end the war weakens that economic pressure and raises serious questions about Washington's strategy.

So far, no meaningful Russian concession on ending the conflict has been publicly established. Although the Kremlin has discussed energy supplies and prospects for resolving the war, the available reporting has not identified a reciprocal commitment that would justify the sanctions relief.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported that U.S. representatives pressed Ukraine to stop attacks on Russian oil refineries, raising the possibility that Kyiv could lose vital American intelligence support if it refused. Ukrainian officials regarded the demand as unfair because it would constrain their attacks without requiring Russia to halt its own strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

What, exactly, is Trump trying to achieve?

His decisions risk reinforcing the perception that American policy is moving in a direction favourable to Moscow, a charge his political opponents have made repeatedly. And if that seems an exaggeration, consider Trump's subsequent public suggestion that Ukraine should elect a new president, accompanied by his criticism of Volodymyr Zelenskyy for failing to reach an agreement with Moscow.

Beyond anything Trump might post on Truth Social, these decisions have consequences. They put additional pressure on a U.S. partner defending itself against invasion while giving Russia a potential economic opening. They also risk undermining confidence among America's allies that Washington's policy toward Moscow and Kyiv is guided by consistent objectives.

Who Stands to Make Money?

Given the commercial interests surrounding energy and the Trump administration's record of controversy over potential conflicts of interest, the appropriate response is investigation, not speculation. So, who stands to profit from this political and economic development?

First, Russian producers and exporters. If the announced shipments are delivered and sold commercially, the companies supplying the fuel can earn revenue. The Russian state may benefit through taxes and other fiscal receipts, although the amounts will depend on prices, costs, ownership and the final transaction structure.

Second, commodity traders and intermediaries may also earn money. Fuel can pass through trading firms, shipping companies, insurers and other middlemen, all of which can collect fees or trading margins. But the identities of the buyers, sellers and intermediaries, the contractual prices and the final distribution of profits have not been publicly established in the reporting reviewed.

Third, there are investors connected to separate Russian energy transactions. Reporting by The New York Times, discussed in subsequent commentary, has raised questions about potential purchases of Russian oil assets involving investors with connections to Trump's circle. These are separate matters from the announced diesel supply arrangement. They nevertheless merit scrutiny of ownership, financing, possible conflicts of interest and the identities of the ultimate beneficiaries.

There is, however, insufficient public evidence to conclude that Trump personally profits from the diesel arrangement or that the deal itself is a vehicle for a kickback. A potential conflict of interest is not proof of corruption, and a commercial opportunity for Russian companies does not establish that every participant has improper motives. The relevant contracts, financial disclosures and ownership records must establish who benefits before anyone can responsibly point a finger.

The Cost of One Misstep After Another

Yet, the wider consequences of Trump's decisions are difficult to ignore.

The war with Iran has disrupted energy supplies and intensified pressure on consumers. Meanwhile, the renewed conflict involving Yemen has spread to Riyadh's King Khalid International Airport, where Reuters reported that at least 12 people were killed and more than 300 injured on October 10. Washington is considering whether to join Saudi military operations against the Houthis, potentially widening its involvement in the region.

Although not every consequence of these conflicts can be attributed to Trump, a president must be judged on the decisions within his control: the objectives he sets, the commitments he makes and the consequences he anticipates.

Trump has started an unnecessary war, and has singlehandedly created an energy crisis all around the world. Yesterday he sought to ease fuel-price pressure by opening a route for Russian diesel while his administration is also pressing Ukraine over attacks on Russian energy infrastructure. No equivalent Russian concession on ending the war has been demonstrated. At the same time, Washington faces the consequences of a wider regional conflict that has disrupted energy markets and increased risks to shipping and security.

The record raises a fundamental question about strategic coherence. Is Washington pursuing a coordinated plan to reduce conflicts and restore stable energy supplies, or are successive decisions by the President and his staff responding to immediate political pressures without resolving the problems that produced them?

A president's authority is not measured simply by his ability to announce a deal. It is measured by whether that deal advances clearly stated national interests, whether allies understand the commitments being made and whether the results justify the costs. I let the record show that Trump has miserably failed his mission as POTUS.

Moreover, if Russian shipments fail to make a meaningful difference to American fuel prices while Moscow gains export opportunities and Ukraine faces additional pressure, the administration will have to explain what the United States gained in return. Trump, in particular, must explain why he is turning to Putin now, when Ukraine needs Western support to defend itself against Russia's invasion.

For ordinary Americans, the stakes include fuel costs, inflation, public spending and the risk of a wider war. For Ukraine, they include something more fundamental: the ability to defend its territory and preserve its sovereignty.

Sources: Reuters, October 9, 2026, “Trump says Russia to supply diesel to US and global markets”; U.S. Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Russia-related General License 135, October 9, 2026; Associated Press, reporting on Trump's diesel agreement with Putin; Financial Times, reporting on U.S. pressure on Kyiv over attacks on Russian refineries; Reuters, October 10, 2026, reporting on the attack on Riyadh's King Khalid International Airport.