Finland and Ukraine have criticised US President Donald Trump’s agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to import Russian diesel, warning that the deal could increase Moscow’s war revenues without delivering meaningful savings for consumers.
Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo described the agreement as a “terrible disappointment” in an interview with Finnish public broadcaster Yle on Saturday. He questioned whether the proposed deliveries would significantly affect fuel prices in the United States or elsewhere, noting that the quantities involved represented only a small share of American diesel consumption.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also condemned the arrangement, accusing Washington of providing financial support to Russia while Moscow continues its war against Ukraine. He argued that the agreement could help sustain the conflict rather than bring it closer to an end.
According to the announcement outlined in the original report, Russia is expected to supply more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel immediately, followed by another 500,000 tonnes in November and a further one million tonnes thereafter. Trump also announced plans for an additional three million tonnes, subject to the condition of Russian refineries damaged by Ukrainian attacks.
The US Treasury subsequently issued a temporary licence allowing imports of Russian diesel until 7 April 2027, easing restrictions intended to limit Russia’s energy revenues.
Speaking on Yle’s Ykkösaamu programme, Orpo expressed disappointment with the decision but questioned whether Russia would deliver the promised quantities. He also cast doubt on the agreement’s ability to bring down fuel prices, suggesting that its impact on both American and international markets would be limited.
Zelenskyy was more direct in his criticism. In a post on X, he described the agreement as a gift to Putin and called it “an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged”. He warned that Russia could respond to the additional revenue by continuing its attacks on Ukraine rather than moving towards peace.
The announcement came as Ukrainian, European and American representatives held talks in Miami aimed at ending the war. Trump defended the fuel arrangement as a way to ease rising energy costs following disruptions associated with the US-Israeli war against Iran, which began in February.
The pressure to reduce fuel costs has become a growing concern for the Trump administration ahead of the US congressional elections on 3 November. Diesel is essential to freight transport, agriculture and other industries, meaning higher prices can raise operating costs for businesses and feed into the prices consumers pay for goods.
Figures from the American Automobile Association, cited by Reuters, put the average US diesel price at $6.28 per gallon on Thursday, about 70% above its level before the conflict with Iran. The increase has added to concerns about the economic impact of expensive fuel, particularly for farmers, truck operators and other businesses that depend heavily on diesel.
The agreement has also drawn criticism from within Trump’s own Republican Party. Republican Congressman Don Bacon called for tougher sanctions against Russia rather than a policy that could increase the Kremlin’s energy income.
Energy specialists have also questioned whether redirecting Russian diesel towards the United States would translate into lower prices. Hanna Kalenoja, a transport specialist at the Finland Chamber of Commerce, told Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sanomat that the arrangement would mainly redirect existing Russian exports rather than add substantially to the amount of diesel available worldwide.
Russia has continued exporting diesel despite production disruptions caused by Ukrainian strikes on its refineries. Kalenoja explained that the agreement could change where Russian fuel is sold, shifting supplies towards the United States and its allies instead of Asian markets that have bought much of the fuel. That change in destination would not necessarily increase global supply or produce a significant fall in prices.
Finnish motorists, she said, were unlikely to benefit substantially from the arrangement. The potential effect on prices in Europe also remains uncertain.
Clayton Seigle, an energy strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, raised similar concerns in comments to the Associated Press. He questioned whether the deal would meaningfully reduce diesel costs in the United States or Europe, while arguing that it would give Russia additional export revenue.
Seigle also pointed to seasonal demand in Russia. As domestic requirements shift from summer-grade diesel towards winter and Arctic fuel grades, Russia is seeking buyers for fuel that may be less suited to its changing domestic needs. The agreement could therefore provide another outlet for existing supplies without necessarily creating a major increase in the amount of diesel available to the international market.
For European governments, the decision raises a broader concern about the relationship between energy prices and sanctions policy. Kalenoja warned that Washington’s willingness to ease restrictions on Russian energy in response to rising fuel costs could complicate Europe’s efforts to limit Moscow’s income from energy exports.
Orpo said the Finnish government was still considering measures to help households and businesses manage higher fuel costs. Proposals under discussion include tax changes, commuting deductions and assistance for professional drivers, although ministers had not yet reached an agreement on a support package.
The prime minister also said he intended to propose ending tourist visas for Russian citizens across Europe at the following week’s European Council meeting. He cited concerns about possible Russian sabotage operations as a reason for the proposal.
The dispute over Russian diesel therefore extends beyond the immediate question of fuel prices. For Finland and Ukraine, the central issue is whether easing restrictions on Russian energy can provide meaningful economic relief without strengthening the finances of a government still waging war against Ukraine. Orpo’s doubts about the likely price impact reflect a wider concern that changing the destination of existing fuel supplies may do little for consumers while allowing Russia to earn additional export revenue.
