oil

Ukraine president earlier said Kyiv was ‘done’ with energy ceasefire and strikes on Russian oil refineries would resume.

Russia says Ukraine has targeted an oil refinery in Ryazan, about 180 kilometres (110 miles) south of Moscow, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv was “done” with an energy ceasefire unilaterally announced by United States President Donald Trump over the weekend.

“The Kyiv regime attempted a large-scale attack on an oil refinery in Ryazan,” Moscow’s defence ministry said in a statement on Thursday, adding that a “fire broke out after drone debris fell onto the refinery site.”

Ukraine’s president earlier told the British newspaper the Financial Times that strikes on Russian oil refineries would resume, and accused the US of weakening Ukraine’s position on the battlefield by allegedly withdrawing crucial intelligence sharing.

Trump on Sunday unilaterally announced an “energy ceasefire” that was not publicly confirmed, and Moscow continued striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Ukraine said it suspended attacks on Russian energy sites for several days after Trump’s announcement.

The US has pressured Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian refineries, claiming that a suspension of attacks and a deal to purchase 1.8 million tonnes of diesel from Russia would help reduce soaring fuel prices.

“This politically is not simple [in America], because everybody will want to ask how it can be when some people are surviving, fighting, dying – and you make . . . business with the guys with such aggression,” Zelenskyy told the FT.

Zelenskyy also alleged that Ukraine’s access to SpaceX’s satellite internet service was restricted, potentially leaving it more vulnerable to Russian attacks. The Ukrainian armed forces use SpaceX’s military-grade Starshield system for offensive and defensive operations.

In a post on X on Wednesday evening, SpaceX owner Elon Musk said that only the US military and Trump had the authority to limit Starshield’s usage and speed for clients.

In a separate post, he called for Zelenskyy to “go” as Ukraine’s leader.

“And so the slaughter continues,” Musk wrote in a separate post on X. “Time for Zelensky to go.”

Ukraine is heavily dependent on Western military aid in its fight against Russia, particularly from the US and Germany. However, Kyiv’s relations with Washington have been strained in recent weeks, with Trump calling on Saturday for Zelenskyy to be replaced.

Against this backdrop of tensions, Zelenskyy said he would be willing to pause strikes on Russian energy sites again, but only if the US supplied Ukraine with crucial Patriot interceptors.

Zelenskyy is due to meet European leaders in Brussels on Thursday as he pushes for tougher sanctions on Moscow and faster delivery of support from the European Union.

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten has called on EU leaders to “step up” their game to ensure Ukraine wins the war against Russia.

The EU has already pledged $50 billion in support for Ukraine next year. However, the sum falls far short of the $175 billion Kyiv plans to spend on its defences next year.

Trump has denied that the US has stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine.

Recent US-Greenland-Denmark agreement excludes mining or drilling rights while reinforcing Greenland’s sovereignty.

Denmark has demanded that US resource exploration in Greenland respect the island’s laws amid President Donald Trump’s claim that oil, gas and mineral extraction will soon begin there.

The Danish Foreign Ministry reaffirmed on Wednesday that last month’s agreement between Denmark, Greenland and the US did not alter the rules for extraction.

The agreement “does not grant investors from the US any preferential treatment” over investors from other NATO and EU countries when it comes to access to natural resources in Greenland, the ministry said.

In a post on Truth Social, US President Trump called the semi-autonomous Danish territory “our new and beautiful Greenland”.

“Massive Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration is getting ready to begin,” he wrote, without providing details.

What the deal covers

Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen signed the 10-page agreement on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 22, ending months of tensions over Trump’s threats to control Greenland.

The deal allows the US to “modernise and expand” its activities at the Pituffik Space Base, a remote US military installation in northwest Greenland.

It also paved the way for two new military bases and Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile defence system, while reaffirming Danish sovereignty and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination.

It did not allocate any rights for mining or drilling.

Greenland’s ban

Greenland banned uranium mining and all future oil exploration in 2021.

Its government is reviewing whether a Texas firm, Greenland Energy, can use permits that predate the ban.

The company said in August it planned to drill for oil in 2027 at an untested basin on Greenland’s east coast, although it lacked its own permit.

Danish security policy adviser Jacob Kaarsbo said Trump’s comments could signal that his desire to control Greenland remains unchanged.

“It is extremely dangerous to view this agreement between the Trump administration and Denmark as something that has altered Trump’s intentions,” he said.

Mikkel Olesen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told Al Jazeera that details regarding mining and exploration rights remained unclear and that information coming mostly from the US side should be taken “with a grain of salt”.

Richard Weitz, a fellow at the NATO Defense College in Rome, said Trump “backed down and settled for less” than he sought, but still “got pretty much everything he wanted, except formal annexation”.

As the United States maintains a naval blockade of Iran’s ports and imposes more sanctions on its oil exports, Tehran is confronting another problem: billions of dollars in revenue from previous oil sales that it says have gone missing.

A spokesperson for Iran’s judiciary said in September that a network of oil intermediaries known as “trustees” owed the Iranian government between 10 billion euros ($11bn) and 11 billion euros ($12bn). That figure was equivalent to half of the total oil revenue projected in Iran’s government budget for the current fiscal year.

US officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have tied Iran’s struggles to access oil revenues as evidence that its economic pressure campaign is having an effect. In August, Bessent said that “Iran’s shadow banking system was buckling” under pressure from the US campaign against the country, which has been ramped up as Washington seeks a way to force Tehran to capitulate in the war between the two countries, launched by the US and Israel in late February.

So who are the oil intermediaries, why does Iran depend on them, and what has happened to the billions of dollars they owe? Let’s take a closer look.

The debt, and the crisis it has created for the Iranian government, both stem from an oil-sales arrangement Tehran adopted in 2012 in response to US sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports.

American and European sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales and revenue collection began in 2012. The stated rationale behind both sets of measures was that revenue from oil sales helped finance Iran’s nuclear programme and that restricting Iranian oil exports could prevent the programme from advancing.

In response, the Iranian government devised a way to circumvent international sanctions on its oil sales. Unable to sell oil through the Oil Ministry and receive the proceeds through the Central Bank, it began selling oil to domestic buyers or using it to settle outstanding obligations to institutions and organisations owed money by the state.

This arrangement gave rise to a network of oil intermediaries often referred to in Iran as the “trustee network”. Rather than selling all its oil through official government channels, the state entrusted crude oil to institutions, individuals and companies to sell on its behalf. The proceeds were supposed to be transferred to the government’s treasury, with the sellers or recipient institutions subsequently recovering their agreed costs and outstanding claims. Some institutions sold the oil themselves, while others contracted private trading companies to handle the sales.

The Oil Industry Pension Fund, established for retired Oil Ministry employees familiar with the oil-sales process, was among the first institutions to receive crude oil for sale. Other recipients included Khatam al-Anbiya Construction Base, a major hub for large-scale infrastructure projects. Even the municipal police received payments owed to them by the government in the form of crude oil.

Effect of the nuclear deal

Even in those early experiments, discrepancies emerged between the revenue expected from oil sales and the amounts sellers actually deposited into the government’s treasury. These discrepancies eventually gave rise to some of Iran’s largest economic corruption cases.

The accounting discrepancies and the government’s inability to recover money from private sellers entrusted with Iranian oil persisted until 2016, when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal was signed and when sanctions on Iranian oil sales were lifted. The government was subsequently able to regain control over oil sales.

Individuals who had sold Iranian oil but failed to return the proceeds were imprisoned. With the ability to sell oil again through legal and transparent channels, the government was able, for a time, to manage its oil revenues and spending with greater control.

How did money from oil sales go unreturned?

After US President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018 during his first presidential term, the Iranian government once again had to rely on private oil traders to sell its oil. But the problems associated with selling oil through intermediaries rather than official state channels, including delays in returning revenues, accounting discrepancies, debts owed by oil sellers to the government, and the occasional seizure of Iranian oil shipments at sea, once again constrained the government’s ability to manage its oil revenues.

Moreover, the US expanded its sanctions beyond Iranian government institutions and interests, adding bank accounts involved in transactions with the Iranian government, currency-exchange offices, companies, and individuals to its sanctions lists. As a result, the time between individuals participating in Iran’s oil-trading network and being sanctioned themselves, along with their assets and companies, and having their accounts blocked or frozen grew progressively shorter.

This contributed to an accumulation of debts owed by sanctioned oil traders – no longer able to access their accounts – to the government. It also left Iran with little choice but to expand its private oil-sales network. That meant increasing the number of people involved in trading Iranian oil, reducing the volume of oil allocated to each individual or company and, ultimately, increasing the risk that the proceeds would not be returned.

Iranian officials have also accused trustees of exploiting the sanctions workarounds to enrich themselves.

The billions of dollars owed by private oil sellers to the Iranian government are a combination of outstanding payments, disputed financial obligations and allegations of corruption. Iran’s judiciary chief recently addressed the issue, warning that oil sellers who refuse to return the proceeds from oil sales will face legal action. But such warnings do not change the sanctions environment or remove the obstacles that prevent some oil sellers from returning the money.

The Cuban government is pushing ahead with its plans to transition to renewable energy, amid a de facto oil blockade from the United States that has strangled the island’s economy.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency on Monday, Cuban Minister of Energy and Mines Vicente de la O Levy explained that the blockade has forced Cuba to explore domestic alternatives to foreign fuel imports.

“We are seeking our own alternative solutions, using our own resources, our sun, wind, tides, fuel, Cuban crude oil and the gas produced in our wells,” de la O Levy said.

He said 144 solar farms with a combined capacity of about 1,418 megawatts have been installed on the island in recent years.

China has been the largest supplier of solar panels to the island, and shipments have increased since the blockade began in early January.

At the time, US President Donald Trump halted all oil shipments from Venezuela, a close ally of the Cuban government.

Later that month, Trump also announced he would impose heavy tariffs on any country that exported oil to Cuba, justifying the threat by calling the island’s government a “national security” threat.

Since then, only a single oil tanker from Russia has reached Havana. The US has increased its shipments of oil to Cuba’s private sector, but it has largely barred fuel exports for nationalised industries on the communist-led island.

The government-run electrical grid, widely considered to be antiquated, relies heavily on fossil fuels. Only 40 percent of Cuba’s electricity comes from ‌‌‌‌domestic ‌‌‌‌oil production, according to the International Energy Agency.

As of 2023, only nine percent of the country’s energy consumption was covered by renewable sources.

De la O Levy admitted in his interview with Reuters that the country was facing difficulties. The blockade has caused shortages of medicine, water and fuel, pushing Cuba to the brink of a humanitarian crisis.

“We are surviving and moving forward, little by little, even if not at the pace we would like,” he said.

“We face long hours of blackouts and lack fuel for cooking and transportation. We lack fuel, but we are gradually making headway through our own solutions and our people.”

Cuba’s production of domestic crude oil remains stable, he added, but is almost entirely allocated to power plants.

The United Nations and human rights watchdogs have criticised the oil blockade as a violation of international law.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla also condemned the oil blockade in his speech at the UN General Assembly last month.

“It is an unusual and unprecedented action,” Rodriguez said of the blockade.

“A superpower unilaterally deprives all states of their right to export the commodities that they wish to the country that they wish.”

The US has maintained an economic embargo on Cuba for more than 60 years, since the Cold War era.

But since taking office for a second term as president, Trump has sought to squeeze Cuba’s economy further, as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign. His administration has indicated that it wants to topple Cuba’s government.

On October 7, US authorities announced they had seized 90 biodiesel fuel shipments valued at over $2.8m destined for Cuba.

“These shipments were part of an attempt to unlawfully export fuel to Cuba in violation of federal export laws,” US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said in a statement.

But in his interview with Reuters, de la O Levy denied the Cuban government had any link to the shipments.

“No Cuban state-owned company has managed to secure a fuel contract, whether for small or large quantities,” he said.

He added that any US oil shipments to private firms fall far short of the country’s requirements.

“I would venture to say that the amount entering the country doesn’t even cover 3 percent of its fuel needs,” de la O Levy said.

Tehran, Iran – Iranian authorities have signalled they intend to disrupt an Arab-operated and United States-assisted shuttle system that has enabled more energy exports through the Strait of Hormuz during the US-Israel war on Iran.

With the US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports in place and sanctions tightening, Tehran has said it will pursue military and diplomatic efforts to put pressure on Washington to submit to its demands regarding reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

This strategic waterway, through which roughly a fifth of global oil and gas flowed before the war, has been largely closed to shipping following Iranian attacks since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

But the US Navy has reportedly opened up a route so Gulf states can export oil and other commodities amid an energy crisis.

Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei responded on Sunday night, saying the shuttle system is now an explicit target for Tehran.

Rezaei claimed that the US Central Command, with the assistance of the United Arab Emirates military, was using smaller vessels to transfer oil to larger tankers. He claimed Iran had been striking five or six participating vessels nightly for weeks.

“You are smuggling, but the strait is under Iran’s control, and we manage it,” he asserted.

This appeared to be a taunt aimed at US President Donald Trump, who has hailed energy exports at times reaching pre-war levels over recent weeks.

Rezaei appeared to give the impression that Iran wants to have lasting authority over Hormuz, and promised a harsh response if Iran’s energy and civilian infrastructure were attacked again.

His threats appeared aimed at Arab regional states, with a warning that digital infrastructure could be targeted. Rezaei threatened US-linked cables, data centres and artificial intelligence facilities in the UAE and around the Strait of Hormuz.

Rezaei also accused Saudi Arabia of helping the US move oil around Iran’s restrictions. But he did not threaten a direct attack against Riyadh – which is currently being targeted by Yemen’s Tehran-aligned Houthis.

In early September, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) threatened tankers at ports and anchorages in Kuwait and Bahrain, citing US attacks on Iranian tankers. It accused both countries of complicity through hosting US armed forces.

Iran has claimed the US accepted some of Tehran’s seven conditions for the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. But Tehran insists that a deal will only materialise when all its demands are met.

Hamidreza Azizi, a senior Iran analyst at the Crisis Group, said this reflects Tehran’s apparent assessment that it is under no immediate pressure to reach an agreement with the US since its pressure in the Hormuz has a global impact.

“The question, however, is whether Tehran is overestimating its ability to sustain this pressure, given the growing economic costs of the confrontation for Iran itself,” Azizi wrote on X.

Transfer system

The system involves very large crude carriers (VLCCs) and smaller vessels coordinating with the US military to load crude oil at Arab ports and use southern corridors near the coast of Oman to exit the strait.

Vessels often switch off their transponders and travel at night to minimise the risk of being targeted by the Iranians. After ship-to-ship transfers in the Gulf of Oman, some of the shuttles come back to load more.

Multiple vessels were targeted overnight Sunday to Monday, including two outbound tankers and one in anchorage near Oman’s port city of Sohar, where ship-to-ship transfers are allegedly being conducted.

Other vessels were targeted by projectiles last week, indicating that attacks have extended beyond the Strait of Hormuz to target the shuttle system.

The IRGC has also increasingly driven a narrative that naval mines, believed to have been planted across the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the war, pose a serious threat to vessels attempting to navigate the waterway without coordinating with Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority.

The IRGC said three tankers suffered major damage over the weekend after being struck by mines. It also released footage of one ship ablaze that is said to have been struck by a mine, although the footage did not appear to show a mine going off.

‘Cascading impact’

The shuttle system has provided Arab national oil companies with a way out of Hormuz via the southern corridor near Oman.

Michelle Wiese Bockmann, a London-based senior maritime intelligence analyst at Windward, said this system has proven highly effective.

“Under international maritime law, which underpins 11 billion tonnes of seaborne trade annually, vessels have what’s called the right of transit passage,” Bockmann told Al Jazeera. “So, what Oman has done is allow vessels to go through under international maritime law, but they have had US military assistance.”

Tehran says shipping will be disrupted so long as the US continues its choking naval blockade against Iran, which has also stepped up its efforts to counter efforts by Arab states to export oil. At least 15 ships are believed to have been targeted in October so far, according to Winward.

“The more effective the route has become in facilitating the transport of oil and gas, the less leverage Iran has over Hormuz, and more attacks we are seeing on vessels that are using that southern corridor,” Bockmann said.

Windward’s data shows 31 ships transited the Strait of Hormuz daily in the final week of September. This was considerably lower than the 138 before the war.

Eighty-seven percent of the 45 ships targeted by Iran during the third quarter of 2026 were tankers.

Around 47 percent belonged to Gulf Arab energy companies’ national shipping fleets, Windward noted, and 93 percent of the strikes took place in the Strait of Hormuz. Most attacks targeted vessels transiting the southern corridor with their transponders turned off.

These attacks have contributed to a massive increase in freight costs. Freight represented 25-30 percent of Gulf crude’s cost, versus just 1 to 3 percent before the war, according to Windward. National oil companies have resorted to offering discounts of up to $35 per barrel below official selling prices.

The main reason for the rise is a shortage of tankers willing to make the dangerous crossing. Between 15 and 20 percent of very large crude carriers (VLCCs) are tied up with an inefficient logistics system that relies on shuttle transfers, complicated by escalating attacks and exposure at loading ports and anchorages.

“This is having cascading impacts for all vessel classes on freight and values across the world,” Bockmann said.

US President Donald Trump has announced an immediate “energy ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine, days after easing sanctions on Russian fuel to tackle soaring domestic and global fuel prices.

The energy truce, announced on Sunday, marks another shift in Washington’s approach to Russian energy, as the Iran-US war and recent Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy facilities disrupted global oil supplies and pushed up fuel prices. Trump has even asked Ukraine not to attack Russian oil facilities, as Moscow remains a major exporter of diesel.

The spike in diesel prices in recent weeks has particularly put pressure on Trump’s Republican Party ahead of November’s midterm elections. Surveys show Americans hold the Trump administration responsible for the soaring fuel prices amid the unpopular US war on Iran.

“Attacks on refineries and energy facilities have taken capacity out of an already stretched global fuel market, pushing up costs for transport, agriculture and businesses, with the pain ultimately passed on to consumers,” Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at Wealth Club, told Al Jazeera, referring to the mutual attacks on energy sites by Ukraine and Russia.

“A genuine ceasefire could help protect supplies and ease some of that pressure, particularly as winter approaches.”

However, she warned it was too early to call it a “diplomatic breakthrough”, citing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s statement that the energy truce came as a surprise to him.

Trump’s decisions have drawn criticism from US politicians and European allies, who warn that allowing Russian fuel back into global markets could provide Moscow with new revenue to finance its war in Ukraine. In March, the Trump administration gave a sanctions waiver to Russian seaborne oil.

So, why has Trump repeatedly changed his position on Russian energy, and what is behind his latest decisions?

What is the ‘energy ceasefire’ Trump announced?

On Sunday, Trump said Russia and Ukraine had agreed to immediately stop attacking each other’s energy infrastructure.

“Both parties have agreed. Do not break it!” he wrote on Truth Social, without providing further details.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he was not aware of the energy truce, saying the deal was “news to me” but welcomed the announcement nonetheless.

However, he said Russian drones continued targeting Ukrainian energy facilities, including a power plant in Kharkiv, after Trump’s statement.

“We are waiting for the details of the conditions between the Americans and Russians, ⁠⁠⁠⁠and we are waiting ⁠⁠⁠⁠to see one specific step the Americans are ready to take,” Zelenskyy said on Monday during a video address to a security conference in Warsaw.

“This ⁠⁠⁠⁠energy ceasefire, it can work, and it can become a major step towards ending ‌‌‌‌the war if the Americans truly step in now and make ‌‌‌‌sure ‌‌‌‌Russians respect it.”

Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russian oil refineries, arguing that energy revenues help fund Moscow’s war. Russia, meanwhile, has attacked Ukraine’s electricity and heating infrastructure throughout the four-year conflict.

Academic Alexey Muriaev has urged caution over Trump’s announcement, questioning whether an agreement has actually been reached, and if so, what it entails.

“Is it about suspending attacks on oil refineries? And if that’s the case, then the situation would be inadequate, because Ukraine’s oil refineries have already been taken out by Russia’s strikes beforehand,” Muraviev, senior research fellow in Defence and Strategic Studies at Edith Cowan University, told Al Jazeera.

“So, in this sense, it would mean effectively Ukraine suspending unilateral action against Russia’s oil refinery facilities.”

Muriaev also linked the announcement to Trump’s diesel agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting it may be a signal to Zelenskyy.

“Attacking Russian oil refinery capability would probably be interpreted by Washington as an attack on US economic interests,” he said, referring to the agreement on diesel exports through April 2027.

What’s the state of global oil prices?

The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine have continued to keep global oil markets under pressure.

On Monday, Brent crude, the international benchmark, fell to about $103.04 a barrel following Trump’s ceasefire announcement and Russian diesel deal, while US West Texas Intermediate crude traded at about $90.96.

However, prices remain elevated because of the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies flow.

Recent attacks on Saudi oil installations and airports by Yemen’s Houthis and the fighting around the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb Strait have put further pressure on oil prices.

Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have compounded diesel shortages, affecting a fuel essential for the agriculture and trucking industries.

The crisis prompted the Group of Seven nations last week to agree to release 100 million barrels of emergency oil and diesel reserves. The G7 decision came after pressure from Trump.

How has the Trump administration zig-zagged between punishing and embracing Russian energy?

Washington’s approach to Russian energy has shifted repeatedly since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Under President Joe Biden, the US banned Russian oil and energy imports in March 2022, seeking to cut off revenue used to finance Moscow’s war.

But Washington simultaneously supported a G7 price cap on Russian oil, designed to restrict Moscow’s earnings without removing too much supply from global markets.

Moreover, the Biden administration also accepted India’s continued purchases of Russian crude to prevent global prices from rising.

After returning to power last year, Trump initially intensified pressure on Moscow. In August 2025, his administration imposed additional tariffs on Indian goods over New Delhi’s purchases of Russian oil.

Two months later, Washington sanctioned Russian energy giants Rosneft and Lukoil, accusing Moscow of failing to seriously pursue peace negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

However, Washington’s approach took a dramatic turn this year. On March 5, Washington issued a 30-day waiver allowing India to buy Russian oil stranded at sea, as disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz amid US attacks on Iran threatened global supplies.

A week later, the Trump administration expanded the exemption, allowing countries worldwide to buy sanctioned Russian oil and petroleum products already loaded onto tankers, with the waiver lasting until April 11.

In September, Trump urged Ukraine to stop attacking Russian refineries, blaming the strikes for global diesel shortages.

On October 9, he announced an agreement with Russian President Putin for Moscow to release more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel immediately, with another 1.5 million tonnes to follow.

Why has Trump changed his position on Russian oil frequently?

Trump’s shifting public position on Russian energy reflects ongoing, and often competing, political and economic pressures.

“Trump is caught between his geopolitical ambitions and the domestic political consequences of expensive energy,” Susannah Streeter of Wealth Club, told Al Jazeera.

She said Washington was trying to pressure Moscow over its war in Ukraine while simultaneously allowing Russian fuel sales that could generate additional revenue for the Kremlin.

“The shift may deliver a short-term political gain if supplies increase and prices ease, but it could come at a longer-term diplomatic cost,” she said, adding that the benefits appeared limited while the Middle East war continued.

US diesel prices reached a record $6.52 per gallon in September, placing Trump under pressure ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

However, according to academic Muriev, the US president’s public rhetoric should be distinguished from his administration’s actions.

“I don’t really see inconsistency in Trump’s approach because, apart from his public rhetoric, apart from his frequent media posting, there’s been a more steady approach on behalf of his administration,” he told Al Jazeera.

He pointed to discussions between Russian and American officials in August and September, suggesting that negotiations over the latest diesel agreement may have begun well before Trump’s announcement last Friday.

Muriev suggested the timing of the announcement could be politically motivated, allowing Trump to claim a victory on energy prices before the midterms.

Moreover, Moscow also has an interest in helping Trump retain political influence because his administration appears more willing to negotiate with Russia than former President Biden was. Trump has  been relatively more accepting of the Russian position on the Ukraine war and has even blamed Zelenskyy for failing to end the war.

“For Putin, it’s not just about scoring immediate economic benefit, but also achieving longer-term political and strategic goals,” Muriev said, referring to other issues such as Iran, cybersecurity, space cooperation and nuclear arms control.

The energy crisis has also created contrasting consequences for American businesses.

While higher oil prices can boost revenues for US energy producers, they increase operating costs for businesses dependent on fuel.

Susannah Streeter said cheaper diesel could provide relief to trucking companies, farmers and manufacturers, although the additional Russian supplies were unlikely to make a significant difference while disruptions in the Middle East continued.

She also warned that frequent changes to sanctions could create uncertainty for companies making long-term investment and supply-chain decisions.

“If sanctions are relaxed, reimposed or changed at short notice, companies face greater uncertainty over sourcing, compliance and the risk of being caught on the wrong side of a policy reversal,” she said.