Last week, President Donald Trump shocked the world by announcing a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which the U.S. agreed to allow the release of thousands of tons of oil.
The move was widely panned as a betrayal of a U.S. ally and an undermining of the international sanctions regime against Russia, as well as a naked appeal by Trump to get energy prices down ahead of the midterm elections. And it all comes at Ukraine’s expense and looks like a betrayal.
Australia is sending 49 of its retired M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, a move that bolsters Kyiv’s armored firepower but raises significant questions about survivability on the modern battlefield. While the donation is a welcome gesture, US officials have reportedly expressed private frustration, warning that Ukraine struggles to sustain the complex tanks and highlighting their vulnerability to cheap, top-attack FPV drones. The war in Ukraine has become a “drone war,” where even advanced main battle tanks are at constant risk. The effectiveness of these donated Abrams will ultimately depend on Ukraine’s ability to counter this pervasive threat.
T-84 Tank from Ukraine War. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Republican senators also denounced the oil deal, with some of them calling it illegal for the president to overturn sanctions without informing Congress and expressing doubt that the deal would bring down gas prices, at least in the short term.
A bipartisan group of 12 senators signed a letter demanding the deal be terminated.
America Betrays Ukraine and Trump Betrays an Old Friend
It was also noted that the president’s late friend, Sen. Lindsey Graham, had spent the final months before his death working to pass a new round of sanctions, leading to a law, bearing Graham’s name, that Trump signed about a month before the reversal.
So Trump has, in effect, posthumously betrayed his friend.
A few days after the deal was announced, the Washington Post’s David Ignatius wrote a column reporting some of the backstory of what happened: The Russian oil deal is part of an expansive plan from Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to end the war, lift sanctions, and integrate Russia back into the world economy, including more normal relations between Russia and Europe, an Article 5-like security guarantee for Ukraine, and a territorial settlement on something resembling the current battle lines.
The energy deal, the Post column said, came about after Ukraine refused to agree to stop attacking Russian oil infrastructure, and Trump had threatened to buy Russian oil if they didn’t go along.
After following through on the threat, Trump publicly called for Volodymyr Zelensky to be replaced as Ukraine’s president.
As part of a peace framework, the energy deal might make sense if Russia wants to enter one. But as a new op-ed points out, Putin may have just outsmarted Trump and gotten what he wanted.
Trump Plays the Fool?
In an op-ed published in The Hill on Thursday, Mark Toth and Jonathan Sweet, analysts who cofounded INTREP360, pointed to last weekend’s episode, in which Trump announced that Ukraine and Russia had agreed to an energy ceasefire deal, something Zelensky denied later that morning.
That was followed by Russia attacking the Combined Heat and Power Plant No. 5 in Kharkiv and striking a grocery store, killing three people.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, meanwhile, declared on Monday that Zelensky “has not ‘earned’ a respite in hostilities, and Russia will not be taken in by his promises.”
Trump, two days after the alleged energy ceasefire that wasn’t, told reporters, “They agreed because I said they agreed.”
All Business
Trump, the Hill authors argue, “keeps falling for the fool’s gold being offered up to him,” usually from Putin envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who has frequently appealed to the instincts of Trump, Kushner and Witkoff: That all global and diplomatic problems can be solved with a big business deal.
Toth and Sweet argue that Dmitriev has frequently offered business opportunities over the last two years, with the price being to “stab Ukraine and NATO in the back.” These have included everything from proposed mineral deals to a potential bridge across the Bering Strait, facilitated by Elon Musk’s Boring Company, and a new Nord Stream pipeline deal.
The new oil deal is merely Russia’s latest and biggest offer, though Trump and his envoys appear to have bitten on it.
At least in the short term, Putin doesn’t seem very interested in a grand bargain to end the war. Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure have continued.
“Trump’s hubris is letting Putin play him,” the Hill op-ed authors write.
In another op-ed in the New York Times this week, David French opined that “Putin was losing” before Trump stepped in with a lifeline.
The president, the conservative Trump critic wrote, has acted in “turning the American government against Ukraine, funding Russia and — perhaps worst of all — playing directly into Putin’s theory of victory.”
About the Author: Stephen Silver
Stephen Silver is an award-winning journalist, essayist, and film critic, and contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Broad Street Review, and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. For over a decade, Stephen has written thousands of articles on politics, national security, technology, and the economy. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) at @StephenSilver, and subscribe to his Substack newsletter.
