US-Russia diesel deal: what's the big idea?

Europe's criticism lacks credibility, Iltalehti stresses:

“Time and again, people in Europe express horror at the idea that the United States is abandoning Ukraine and leaving Europe at the mercy of Russia – but that has not happened. Although it is true that Europe has had to take on much greater responsibility for European defence, this is not just Trump's idea but the result of a long-term trend in US security policy. In their moral zeal, Europeans should bear in mind that the deal announced by Trump is, after all, far smaller than the volume of Russian gas and oil that Europe continues to purchase every year. Europe's calls for sanctions would be more credible if it cleaned up its own act first.”

Will Trump lead the US into the Russian camp by switching sides entirely? wonders Neatkarīgā:

“Ukraine and the EU have already prepared for a complete US withdrawal from Ukraine. However, this is unlikely to happen, because Ukraine is currently the main testing ground for state-of-the-art military technologies. In other words: if you are not present in the Ukrainian war zone, you are not part of the defence industry or the arms trade. Whatever one may think of Trump, it would be difficult for him to become Putin's direct ally on the battlefield, even if he genuinely wanted to. The US public simply wouldn't understand.”

Trump's diesel deal will do more harm than good, says The Independent:

“His deal to buy diesel from Vladimir Putin's gangster regime is as shocking in its cynicism as it is counterproductive. Mr Trump and the average US floating voter may not care that they are pumping money into the Russian war machine, prolonging the war and killing Ukrainians. But they ought to care that the deal will not bring down the price of diesel – and that it makes Mr Trump look weak. ... There is, in truth, little that the British government, or the governments of our allies in Europe and around the world, can do about Mr Trump's misjudgment of Mr Putin – except to remain steadfast in our support for the Ukrainian people.”

Trump has destroyed his credibility for a few drops of diesel, notes Jutarnji list:

“By opening the doors to Russian diesel, Washington is de facto breaching its own sanctions and filling the Kremlin's coffers with foreign currency that will fund the continuation of its aggression against Ukraine. This has left the White House under fire from its allies. While Washington is peddling a fairy tale about economic salvation, in practice Trump has given the Kremlin a diplomatic gift and money in exchange for fuel enough for half a working day, the BBC has calculated. Moscow wants to send 300,000 tonnes of diesel to make life easier for US motorists and farmers. But the US consumes around 3.6 million barrels of diesel [around 500,000 tonnes] every day.”

On news website Adevărul, former journalist and military attaché Laurențiu Sfinteș wonders why the US president wants to strike this deal in the first place:

“At the end of the day, every politician in the world is accountable only to their own electorate. ... However, if they only have to stand for election once every four, five or even seven years, things are straightforward. If they have to face major elections every two years, things becomes extremely complicated. ... Then all that matters is the ever-changing nature of the factors that influence the voter's mobility and sentiment. And US voters are well-educated citizens who spend half their life in powerful cars – usually running on diesel – and who quickly lose their tempers when they see the prices at the filling stations.”

Delfi columnist Rimvydas Valatka is outraged:

“The US doesn't need Russian diesel. It has more than enough of its own. Last year, it exported 62 million tonnes – almost twice as much as Russia, which is now suffering from a diesel shortage itself. ... It has gone from being an exporter to an importer. Trump needed a pretext to lift the sanctions against Russia. This is yet another of his lies. A smokescreen for the Maga idiots. ... The diesel from Russia is just a drop in Putin and Trump's blood-soaked ocean. The US President is extending a helping hand to Russia, the aggressor at a time when Russia is no longer even hiding the fact that it is deliberately targeting Ukrainian civilians. ... America has openly sided with the Russian terrorists.”

In a Telegram post republished by Echo, journalist Dmitry Kolezev does not see the deal as a disaster for Kyiv:

“For obvious reasons, the EU does not welcome Trump's renewed outpouring of affection for Putin. But even if all this poses a major problem for Zelensky and Ukraine, it's unlikely that these developments spell disaster or the end of US support. With less than a month to go before the US mid-term elections tensions are running high, and in all likelihood we will simply have to weather this storm. It is possible that against the backdrop of this pressure, Kyiv will scale back its attacks on Russian oil refineries. However, it is by no means certain that this will make things any easier for Russia.”

Novinky.cz is unequivocal in its stance:

“One thing is clear after the US's latest move: transatlantic ties are a thing of the past. Trump doesn't honour commitments and is prepared to step on anyone's toes or stab them in the back. To feel reassured by Trump's repeated promises that the US would honour its NATO commitments and come to the aid of a country under attack would be self-deception. If it suits him, he'll come. But then again, perhaps he won't. Trump's America is not a reliable partner but a frenemy – something between a friend and an enemy – and one must behave accordingly.”