Trump-Putin Understanding on Ukraine: Energy, Spheres of Influence and Backroom Gasoil Deal!

This situation reveals an important contradiction. Washington may be in confrontation with Iran on one file while making a deal with Russia on another to reduce the costs of the Russia crisis. In this pattern, enmity and cooperation are not fixed positions; each actor can be a rival on one issue and a deal partner on another.

Ambassador Arjan; Yalda Azarpi- The recent exchange between Trump and Putin, which at first glance appears to be an attempt to end the war in Ukraine or a temporary deal to reduce US costs, shows overlaps in political attitudes, governance priorities and the concept of world order; The overlaps that appear in the skepticism of liberal institutions, the emphasis on the authority of leaders and the desire to redefine spheres of influence. In such a framework, Ukraine is a test to measure the independence of smaller countries and the validity of international rules against the agreement of the big powers.

The developments of the 9th and 10th of October 2026 say everything. Trump and Putin's agreement to supply Russian diesel to the US market, the US president's harsh criticism of Zelensky and his public request to choose a new leader of Ukraine, put together a series of decisions and statements that ultimately benefit Moscow. To understand this process, one must differentiate between ideological convergence, economic transaction, geopolitical competition, and the limitations of American domestic politics. All these factors are not equally decisive, but when they are put together, they give a clear picture of the direction of the Trump administration.

Russian diesel; Win-win deal with different costs

On October 9, Trump announced an agreement with Putin to supply Russian diesel to the American market and the world market. According to published reports, the first phase includes 300 thousand tons of diesel and more shipments are planned. The announced goal is to increase the supply and reduce the fuel price pressure in a situation where the Iran war and disruption of energy transmission routes have increased economic costs.

For Trump, this agreement is an immediate achievement that can be presented to public opinion. The price of fuel is tied to the cost of transportation, agriculture, production and daily life. The American government, which is facing mid-term congressional elections on November 3rd, must show that it is able to increase energy supply and reduce the economic pressure on citizens through negotiations. In this calculation, cooperation with Russia is considered a way to solve the internal problem.

But what is a short-term obstacle for Washington is also of political and economic importance for Moscow. The income from energy exports helps finance the Russian government, and limiting it has been one of the tools of Western pressure after the invasion of Ukraine. Reducing restrictions or providing a new way to sell oil products can neutralize part of the effect of sanctions. Zelensky also considered the agreement to be a wrong move and warned that more Russian income could help finance the war.

Of course, the economic impact of these shipments should not be overestimated. Russia's diesel supply alone is not a guarantee of a stable price reduction in the US, because the energy crisis, refining capacity, transportation costs and supply disruptions are also effective in other regions. The importance of the agreement, in addition to the economic consequences, is that Washington is willing to moderate part of the pressure on Moscow to meet domestic needs; This is the point where the trade deal becomes a geopolitical issue.

Is the removal of Zelensky part of the agreement?

On October 10, Donald Trump demanded the election of a new leader in Ukraine; A leader who, according to him, can reach an agreement with Russia. He accused Volodymyr Zelensky of not being able to end the war and considered Ukraine's attacks on Russian refineries to be effective in aggravating the problems of the diesel market. These statements came after the energy agreement between Washington and Moscow, which provoked a negative reaction from Kiev and a number of European allies.

However, a distinction must be made between Trump's apparent desire to remove Zelensky and the claim of a secret agreement to remove him. There is no public evidence or independent verification to prove such an agreement. However, the American political and economic pressure on Kyiv can lead to the realization of a goal close to Moscow's long-standing desire: weakening the leadership of Ukraine and increasing pressure on this country to accept territorial and security concessions. There are reports of US pressure on Kiev and threats to cut off information sharing if Ukraine continues to attack Russia's energy infrastructure.

political convergence; Not a complete union

The rapprochement between Trump and Putin is not only about trying to end the war in Ukraine. The fact is that despite the structural differences, there are overlaps between the political discourse of the two superpowers; Commonalities such as emphasis on strong leadership, nationalism, skepticism towards multilateral institutions and opposition to parts of liberal values.

In such an attitude, politics is more than the field of adherence to common rules, it is the field of competition between leaders and great powers to advance national interests. As a result, international institutions and the independence of smaller countries are overshadowed by the strategic considerations of great powers.

However, Putinism should not be seen as a return to Soviet communism. Russia today relies on a capitalist economy, concentration of political power, influence of oligarchs and state nationalism. Trumpism is not the American version of Putinism; The American political structure still faces independent Congress, courts, elections, and social forces that can limit the power of the president.

Therefore, the issue is not the existence of complete ideological unity, but convergence in some political preferences and strategic calculations that can provide the basis for agreement, without destroying the competition of the two countries.

What does Trump give and what does he get?

Trump's foreign policy can be partially explained by the logic of the deal. He seeks to reduce costs, gain economic points and introduce agreements as a political achievement. From this point of view, the end of the war in Ukraine will reduce the cost of supporting Kiev, facilitate access to energy resources and show Trump as a negotiator who has succeeded in solving international crises.

Putin, on the other hand, can benefit from reducing economic pressure, increasing energy income, and weakening Western support for Ukraine. If Russia improves economic relations with the United States without major setbacks on the battlefield, it will reduce some of the pressure on itself and stabilize military gains.

However, Washington's calculation may also be related to competition with China. Decreasing tensions with Moscow can be a way for the Trump administration to free up resources and focus on other priorities, but this approach does not guarantee that Russia will distance itself from Beijing. Moscow may benefit from cooperation with China and trade with America at the same time; A situation based on which Washington cedes part of its leverage, without necessarily gaining a strategic advantage.

Russian diesel and the limitation of Hormuz leverage

The US-Russia energy agreement has been brought up in a situation where the Iran war and the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, an important route for the transfer of oil and energy products, have put the global supply in jeopardy. In such a situation, access to alternative sources becomes more important for Washington.

Russia's supply of diesel can partially compensate for the lack of this product and reduce America's immediate dependence on some supply routes. But this agreement should not be considered as a complete replacement for the flow of oil and energy from the Persian Gulf. Crude oil and diesel are different products and they do not have the same refining capacity, transportation routes and supply structure.

The strategic effect of this agreement depends on the actual volume of exports, the continuity of supply and the reaction of other producers. At best, alternative sources can reduce America's vulnerability to supply disruptions, but they alone will not eliminate the geopolitical leverage of the Strait of Hormuz.

This situation reveals an important contradiction. Washington may have a confrontation with Iran in one case and enter into a deal with Russia in another case to reduce the costs of the crisis. In this model, enmity and cooperation are not fixed positions; Each actor can be a competitor in one issue and a trading partner in another issue.

Europe; An ally exposed to marginalization

The closeness of Washington and Moscow can weaken Europe's trust in American security guarantees. If Ukraine's future is decided in negotiations in which Kiev and European allies have a limited role, the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean will deepen.

Europe is facing a difficult choice regarding this situation; Either he has to deal with an unfavorable agreement in order to maintain the support of America, or he has to strengthen his defense and diplomatic capabilities. The second option is time-consuming and costly, but continued dependence without clear guarantees increases Europe's vulnerability. Russia can also take advantage of the differences between NATO members to strengthen its position.

Trump's behavior is not necessarily inconsistent or reckless; He may threaten at one point and give concessions at another point to increase his bargaining power. However, the outcome of such transactions depends on the balance of points. If the reduction of restrictions and economic concessions is not accompanied by mutual commitments, the agreement will strengthen Moscow's position instead of increasing American power.

The importance of the relationship between Trump and Putin is not limited to the fate of Zelensky or the price of diesel; The more important issue is whether the great powers can divide in order to secure their economic and security interests about the future of an independent country and call the result peace?

An agreement with Ukraine's genuine participation, clear security guarantees, and mutual commitments from Russia could pave the way for an end to the war, but if the cessation of hostilities comes at the cost of consolidating territorial gains, limiting Ukraine's right to choose, and rewarding military aggression, it will set a worrying precedent for future crises.

The deal between Trump and Putin should be seen on three levels: immediate economic interests, strategic calculations of great powers, and convergence in some political preferences. No one level alone explains all the behavior of the two sides, but when we put the levels together, we understand why this relationship goes beyond diplomatic spin.

We have to see what Washington gives up in exchange for the points it gets from Moscow. If the result is the weakening of Ukraine, the reduction of Europe's trust in the United States and the limitation of the rules supporting the sovereignty of countries, the consequences of the agreement will go beyond the borders of war. In that case, this trade-off indicates the future of an order in which smaller countries are denied the right to decide their own destiny.