In the past 24 hours, the Trump administration has given to Ukraine with one hand, whilst striking a devastating blow with the other.
On Friday, the White House announced a ceasefire in the occupied town of Oleshky, southern Ukraine, where residents are starving and each side accuses the other of blocking food from getting in, brokered by First Lady Melania Trump.
The very same day, the Kremlin announced that the first oil tanker of Russian fuel bound for the US had departed, the first shipment since America imposed sanctions on Russia in July 2023.
Despite the apparent contradiction in these actions, experts The i Paper spoke to were in no doubt as to which move was more significant, and whose side President Donald Trump is really on in Russia’s war with Ukraine.
Ceasefire ‘a show’ to ‘cover’ for Trump
Russia and Ukraine will both stop firing on Oleshky in the early hours of 27 October, allowing the city’s 2,000 residents to be evacuated and aid to be delivered. The humanitarian situation in the city, which is caught between Ukrainian front lines on the Dnipro river and Russia’s forces in the east, has got so bad in recent weeks the Pope called for an intervention.
Keir Giles, associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House, said that while he hopes it brings practical relief to the citizens of Oleshky, the move should be interpreted as a “show” by the Trump administration rather than a meaningful step towards peace.
He said: “It gives the Trump group and the Trump family a certain amount of cover to say, ‘look, we are doing something which is not just for Russia’. But beyond that, the practical impact of any of [Melania’s contributions] things so far has not been huge.”
“Whatever Melania’s real feelings about it may be, it’s blatant that she’s been put forward as the face of the Trump family that isn’t completely pro-Russia and will ask Russia for tiny, tiny concessions,” he said.
A ‘huge bonus’?
Giles thinks the easing of sanctions with a tanker leaving Russian territory for America on Friday is a “huge bonus” for the Kremlin, not for the amount of oil it will deliver (just a few days’ worth of America’s daily consumption) because of what it signifies about the future of the sanctions which have crippled Russia’s economy in the last few years.
“It shows all these sanctions are meaningless and can be circumvented at will,” Giles said.
Professor Scott Lucas, an expert in US foreign policy and domestic politics, agrees that this move “shatters the US sanctions approach”, and thinks it will help Russia in the short term.
“They’re suffering from stalled GDP growth rate, higher interest rates, high inflation, huge government budget deficit,” Lucas said. “It will help them cover a little bit of that budget gap or at least make up for some of the damaging effects of [sanctions].”
He thinks the gain for the US will be minimal, though. Trump is desperate to bring down high fuel costs for consumers as a result of the war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz impacting global markets, especially with the mid-term elections approaching.
“[Trump] doesn’t want people to blame him for the rise of diesel prices because of Iran, so he covers it by trying to take a bit of diesel from Russia,” Lucas said.
But the US is a net exporter of diesel, meaning importing more supplies from Russia is unlikely to bring prices down, and President Trump could stop imports as soon as they fail to have the desired effect.
The EU, meanwhile, has committed to phasing out all Russian gas imports by the end of 2027, with the next phase beginning in January, meaning the Russian economy will take another hit next year whether or not the US continues to import its oil.
The diesel agreement and praise this week from US envoy, Steve Witkoff, also represents a symbolic shift of the US welcoming a warmer approach to Russia.
Ukraine, however, is still reeling from the mysterious temporary loss of Starlink and Trump’s calls for Volodymyr Zelensky to be replaced following his criticism of the diesel deal.
‘Ukraine has given up on Trump’
The US administration’s interactions with Russia over the last few weeks have been evidence of Trump’s increasing “affinity for Putin rather than Zelensky”, says Professor Lucas, but the Ukrainian president might be using this to his advantage.
“I think Ukraine’s given up on trying to swing Trump back,” said Lucas. “Zelensky and Europeans know that Trump may be too deep with Putin now to pull him back. The plan for Ukraine now is ‘survive the winter with Europe’s support’.”
“[In] the conversations with Ukraine and European partners…I would be surprised if there were not a strong element of, ‘we told you so”,’ said Giles, who is sceptical that Europe will be up to the task of supporting Ukraine. “Europe has had years to get ready for the realisation that seems to be finally dawning that the United States is not a reliable ally or partner.”
But Professor Lucas is more optimistic, pointing to the EU’s agreement to release frozen Russian assets as financial aid for Ukraine.
“The biggest variable is Ukraine,” he said. “If Ukraine makes it through this winter without breaking from the Russian airstrikes, I think that may be the Russians’ last chance to get Ukraine to surrender, because the Russians are not advancing on the front lines.”