Russian Diesel Deal and Energy Ceasefire Expose Moscow’s Limits

Executive Summary:

Over the last week, the intensity of the political fracas around Russia’s war against Ukraine mirrored the ferocity of pitched battles in Donbas and the severity of long-distance strikes on Ukrainian cities and Russian infrastructure. U.S. President Donald Trump’s October 9 announcement that Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to supply Russian diesel to U.S. and global markets precipitated a flurry of diplomatic activity (Izvestiya, October 12). The increase in immediate deliveries to global markets in October has been very limited, and diesel prices in the United States have not registered any drop. Russian officials declared plans to restore its diesel exports to ten percent of the global market by the end of the year, but the feasibility of these plans is dubious given the degradation of the Russian oil industry, in part because of Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries (Carnegie Politika, October 12; RBC, October 14). Moscow pundits, however, rejoiced over the deal, which in their opinion leaves Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a disadvantage (Rossiiskaya Gazeta, October 11).  

On October 11, Trump announced an energy ceasefire on social media that neither Moscow nor Kyiv had formally agreed to (Novaya Gazeta Evropa, October 12). Russian forces did not stop striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure, and Ukraine ended a three-day pause on October 15 with a strike on the Ryazan refinery (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, October 12). 

Zelenskyy sought to mobilize international support with visits to London and Brussels during the pause in Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure (Kommersant, October 15). Russian experts, meanwhile, celebrated a reduction in Ukraine’s functional access to Starshield, caused by restrictions on connectivity for fast-moving terminals (Nezavisimaya Gazeta; TopWar.ru, October 15). Zelenskyy reportedly considered a proposal from U.S. senators Roger Wicker and Kevin Cramer to pause Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries for 100 days in exchange for expanded U.S. Starshield coverage extending roughly 300 kilometers (186.4 miles) into Russia, which would allow Ukrainian drones to maintain communications farther into Russian territory and potentially target mobile ballistic-missile launchers (Vedomosti, October 16). No such agreement has been announced, and in the meantime, Ukraine has resumed strikes on Russian refineries, targeting the oil terminal in St. Petersburg and reaching as far in Western Siberia as the Surgut, where a gas condensate stabilization plant was reportedly hit (Radio Svoboda, October 16; Fontanka.ru, October 18).

Renewed Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure had the potential to strain Kyiv’s relationship with Washington. Trump subsequently signed an executive order temporarily waiving the implementation of the sanctions and tariffs mandated by the recently enacted Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act (Forbes.ru, October 17). This measure is unlikely to bring any relief to the struggling Russian economy, in which sustained under-investment in most civilian sectors is being aggravated by the accumulated impact from Ukrainian attacks (The Insider, October 12; see EDM, October 13). The European Union, meanwhile, continued to signal that it would maintain pressure on Russia, including through a proposed 22nd sanctions package (Kommersant, October 12; Izvestiya, October 16). Russia keeps trying to sow discord among the Europeans by expanding its campaign of disinformation and sabotage, including direct strikes on commercial ships near the coast of Bulgaria that Sofia attributes to Russia (Novaya Gazeta Europe, October 13; Voice of America, October 16). The volume of automated traffic originating from Yandex’s network decreased due to Ukrainian strikes on the Yandex data centers, and Bulgaria has requested support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) because of the Russian threat to its shipping (NV.UA; RBC, October 13).

The inability of Russian hybrid warfare to end European aid to Ukraine has incited the most hawkish commentators to argue for preparing to use nuclear weapons in a potential conflict with Europe. More balanced experts still ponder the usefulness of high-atmosphere nuclear explosions for interrupting hostile communications (Kommersant, October 11; RIAC, October 13). Putin prefers to make nuclear threats in more elliptical terms while emphasizing supposed successes of Russian troops in conventional battles. Last week, after a long break, he staged a visit to a carefully decorated command center and approved the report of Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov and assembled commanders (Kommersant, October 17). The Russian claims of capturing some 1,800 square kilometers (695 square miles) from September 1 were so grossly exaggerated that even jingoist bloggers are questioning the reliability of the military data supplied to Putin (TopWar.ru, October 16). The real picture of heavy losses and penetrating Ukrainian counter-attacks in the two-month-long Operation Vivaldi is downplayed in the mainstream Russian media, but has no place in Putin’s strategic perspective (Gazeta.ru; Vazhnye Istorii, October 16). The sustainability of Putin’s war against Ukraine is undercut most of all by the mounting costs of manpower driven up by the system of commercial recruitment, which has become a heavy burden for Russia’s seriously unbalanced budget and cannot indefinitely deliver the necessary number of bodies for continuing offensive operations (The Moscow Times, October 12; Re: Russia, October 13).

The old war calculus that Putin refuses to revise presumes a steady escalation of trans-Atlantic disagreements, progressive growth of disunity in Europe, and fast erosion of Ukraine’s will to resist Russian aggression. These variables register oscillating changes, but the total does not support the assumption that Russia can outlast the Western coalition and bring Ukraine to submission. Zelenskyy exploits Putin’s miscalculations to gain the upper hand in political maneuvering despite disagreements with the U.S. administration and the rise of skepticism about aid to Ukraine in parts of Europe. Ukraine’s position of strength is incomprehensible to the Kremlin, for which declarations matter more than facts, but war has a cruel capacity to shatter political delusions.

Dr. Pavel K. Baev is a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).

This article appeared originally at The Jamestown Foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor (EDM).