Within hours of Donald Trump announcing an immediate halt to Russian and Ukrainian attacks on energy infrastructure, Moscow struck a major power plant in Kharkiv. Kyiv has agreed to a reciprocal ceasefire, but Russia has yet to confirm its participation, leaving serious doubts over what Washington has actually secured.

President Donald Trump’s announcement of an immediate ceasefire covering Russian and Ukrainian energy infrastructure was overtaken by events on Sunday evening when Russian forces struck a major thermal power station in Kharkiv. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed Ukraine’s willingness to suspend attacks on Russian energy facilities, but said Moscow was continuing its bombardment even as Washington presented the arrangement as an accomplished diplomatic breakthrough.

The contradiction emerged within hours of Trump declaring that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to stop targeting each other’s energy infrastructure. Zelenskyy, responding in his evening address on 11 October, welcomed the proposal but reported that Russian attack drones remained active over Ukrainian territory and that Kharkiv’s CHP-5 thermal power station had just been struck.

The Ukrainian president made clear that Kyiv had not rejected the American initiative. Ukraine was prepared to refrain from attacking Russian energy installations and expected Moscow to accept the same restrictions. However, no corresponding commitment had been publicly confirmed by the Kremlin, and Washington had provided no explanation of how the supposed ceasefire would be implemented.

The timing was particularly significant because Ukraine had apparently not been informed that a binding agreement had been concluded. According to accounts of the announcement, Zelenskyy was unaware of Trump’s declaration before it became public, although he subsequently indicated his readiness to support the initiative.

His response therefore amounted to an acceptance of the proposed terms rather than confirmation that a negotiated ceasefire was already in force.

More than 200 attacks on Ukraine’s power network

The reported strike on Kharkiv came at the end of a particularly destructive week for Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure. Zelenskyy said Russian forces had carried out more than 200 attacks against electricity generation and transmission facilities over seven days, alongside 17 strikes targeting gas and oil installations.

He also reported that more than 150 Ukrainians had been killed and over 700 wounded during the week. These figures, supplied by the Ukrainian authorities, have not been independently verified.

The continuing bombardment places additional pressure on Ukraine’s power network as winter approaches. Thermal power stations and substations remain particularly vulnerable, while damage to generating capacity can disrupt electricity, heating and water supplies across entire urban districts.

Washington’s pressure on Kyiv

Trump’s ceasefire announcement follows an increasingly bitter dispute over Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries, which have damaged Moscow’s fuel production and distribution infrastructure.

The American president has blamed Ukrainian strikes for worsening international diesel shortages and rising fuel prices. His administration has also threatened restrictions on military assistance and intelligence sharing if Kyiv refuses to suspend its campaign against Russian refineries.

Meanwhile, Washington has reached an arrangement with Moscow permitting substantial Russian diesel exports under a temporary easing of sanctions. Zelenskyy has criticised the decision, arguing that additional energy revenues could strengthen Russia’s capacity to continue its invasion.

For Ukraine, refinery attacks have become an important means of disrupting Russian military logistics and imposing economic costs on Moscow. Agreeing to suspend them without guarantees that Russian strikes will also cease would remove one of Kyiv’s principal instruments of pressure.

The diplomatic sequence has consequently raised questions about whether Trump’s initiative offers equivalent obligations to both countries, or primarily serves Washington’s immediate objective of stabilising fuel supplies.

Kremlin silence leaves ceasefire in doubt

By Sunday evening, Moscow had issued no public confirmation that Putin had accepted the arrangement. Washington had provided no details of its duration, the installations covered or any mechanism for verifying compliance.

An agreement confined to energy infrastructure would also leave both armies free to continue other military operations, including attacks on cities, industrial installations and military positions.

Zelenskyy said Ukrainian forces had received the necessary orders, while Kyiv awaited clarification of Washington’s discussions with Moscow. He maintained that Ukraine supported credible measures to end the fighting but expected Russia to demonstrate a corresponding commitment.

The immediate question is whether Trump obtained an undertaking from Putin that Moscow is prepared to honour. Until Russia confirms the terms and its attacks cease, the announced energy truce remains a presidential declaration rather than an established cessation of hostilities.

Donald Trump has presented his agreement with Vladimir Putin as a means of reducing American fuel prices. Yet the Treasury authorisation extends far beyond the announced diesel shipments, opening opportunities for international trade in Russian petroleum products as American investors negotiate the acquisition of Lukoil’s overseas assets.

President Donald Trump’s decision to reopen trade in Russian diesel has implications extending well beyond American fuel prices. The agreement, announced ahead of November’s congressional elections, coincides with negotiations over Russian energy assets and mounting American pressure on Ukraine to suspend attacks against Moscow’s oil infrastructure.

The US Treasury’s General Licence 135, issued on 9 October, authorises transactions involving Russian-origin diesel until 7 April 2027. Unlike Trump’s public announcement, which referred to specific quantities destined for the American market, the licence establishes no corresponding volume ceiling or restriction confining authorised trade to the United States.

Its provisions permit American businesses to participate in eligible international transactions involving Russian diesel, including associated financial and commercial services. Existing sanctions remain formally in force, but an important category of Russian petroleum trade has been reopened.

The arrangement potentially benefits not only Russian producers but also American commodity traders, financial institutions and intermediaries capable of purchasing Russian fuel and distributing it internationally.

Sanctions relief without removing sanctions

The legal mechanism offers Washington considerable flexibility. Rather than formally abandoning restrictions imposed over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the administration can authorise selected transactions while maintaining the broader sanctions framework.

Congress’s Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 strengthened the legislative basis for economic pressure on Moscow but also provided presidential waiver powers.

General Licence 135 was issued under existing Treasury sanctions authorities, rather than necessarily through those waiver provisions. Nevertheless, the combined framework leaves the administration substantial discretion over the practical application of economic restrictions.

Washington can consequently maintain its declared sanctions policy while selectively restoring commercial relations with Russia. European governments, which have maintained extensive restrictions on Russian energy, have little influence over such unilateral American exemptions.

The Lukoil connection

The timing becomes more revealing when considered alongside negotiations over Lukoil’s international assets.

American investors have been exploring the acquisition of the Russian company’s overseas operations, including oilfields, refineries, storage facilities and retail distribution networks. The portfolio has been valued at approximately $20–22 billion.

Among the prospective investors is billionaire Todd Boehly, while discussions concerning Russian-American economic cooperation have involved Trump’s representatives Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

An American-controlled acquisition of Lukoil’s international network could complement the commercial opportunities created by the diesel authorisation.

Russian petroleum products could potentially be purchased and marketed through American-controlled businesses, allowing Russian suppliers to retain export revenues while intermediaries earn profits from financing, distribution and resale.

No evidence establishes that General Licence 135 was specifically designed for the prospective Lukoil purchasers, or that Trump personally holds an interest in the proposed transactions. Nevertheless, the parallel negotiations suggest the possibility of an emerging commercial arrangement under which American intermediaries assume a greater role in Russian energy exports.

Ukraine and the conflict of interests

The consequences for Ukraine could be considerable.

Kyiv has expanded attacks against Russian refineries, fuel depots and petroleum infrastructure, seeking to reduce Moscow’s export earnings and disrupt supplies supporting its armed forces.

Trump has repeatedly criticised these strikes, linking them to higher international fuel prices. His administration now has an additional commercial reason to seek their suspension.

On 11 October, Trump announced an energy ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, although President Volodymyr Zelenskyy indicated that Kyiv had not agreed to such an arrangement.

Ukraine has maintained that any suspension of attacks against Russian energy facilities must be matched by an end to Moscow’s strikes on Ukrainian power infrastructure.

An agreement protecting Russian refineries without equivalent Russian concessions would preserve an important source of Kremlin revenue while depriving Kyiv of military and economic leverage.

A separate accommodation with Moscow?

The immediate political advantage for Trump is apparent. Rising diesel prices have become a concern ahead of the 3 November midterm elections, particularly among farmers and transport businesses. Additional Russian supplies offer the administration an opportunity to demonstrate action on domestic fuel costs.

Yet the six-month Treasury authorisation extends considerably beyond the election, suggesting commercial objectives that cannot be explained exclusively by short-term electoral considerations.

The emerging pattern is one of bilateral economic engagement with Moscow proceeding independently of a settlement in Ukraine. Russian energy trade is being selectively reopened, American investors are pursuing Russian-owned assets, and Washington is seeking restrictions on Ukrainian operations against the infrastructure underpinning those commercial interests.

For European governments, this threatens the cohesion of the sanctions regime. Brussels may continue restricting Russian energy revenues while Washington authorises transactions that restore access to international markets.

The larger prospect is a system in which Russia retains export earnings, American intermediaries acquire profitable commercial positions, and sanctions become instruments of bilateral negotiation rather than coordinated Western pressure.

Trump’s diesel agreement may therefore represent the opening stage of a wider economic accommodation with Putin, negotiated while Russia continues its war against Ukraine and without any corresponding Russian commitment to withdraw from occupied territory.

Intelligence services from five European countries warn that Russia is expanding assassination and sabotage operations against defence manufacturers supplying Ukraine. The threats coincide with an alleged plot against Poland’s prime minister and defence minister, raising concerns about Moscow’s efforts to undermine European military assistance through intimidation and political destabilisation.

European intelligence agencies have warned that Russia is intensifying efforts to assassinate executives of defence companies supplying Ukraine, extending its campaign of sabotage and intimidation into the European military-industrial sector.

According to intelligence assessments obtained from five European security services, Moscow has ordered an expansion of covert operations targeting senior figures at major arms manufacturers and smaller companies producing drones and military components. Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the BfV, has reportedly advised executives to strengthen personal security, while some manufacturers have already increased protection for senior personnel.

The warnings emerged alongside reports of an alleged assassination plot against Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Defence Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz. Polish authorities convened an emergency security meeting and subsequently detained a suspect. No connection between the Polish case and Russian intelligence has been established.

Europe becomes Moscow’s principal target

The apparent expansion of Russian covert operations reflects a shift in Moscow’s calculations concerning Western military assistance.

President Vladimir Putin had reason to anticipate that Donald Trump’s return to the White House would weaken American support for Kyiv. Trump repeatedly questioned US military expenditure on Ukraine and advocated a negotiated settlement with Russia. A substantial reduction in American weapons deliveries could have increased pressure on Ukraine to accept Moscow’s territorial demands.

Instead, European governments assumed greater responsibility for sustaining Ukrainian defence capabilities, including financing weapons purchases and expanding domestic production.

The European Union’s €90 billion support programme for 2026–2027 allocates €60 billion to defence procurement and industrial capacity. The EU has also established mechanisms allowing Ukraine to participate in European joint procurement programmes.

Disrupting European manufacturers therefore offers Moscow a means of restricting Ukraine’s military capabilities without directly confronting NATO.

Assassination threats can interfere with procurement even when attacks are never carried out. Large manufacturers can afford extensive security arrangements, but smaller companies producing electronics, drone components and specialised equipment often lack comparable resources.

Intimidation could delay contracts, discourage investment and persuade individual suppliers to withdraw from Ukrainian defence programmes.

Sabotage as an instrument of political pressure

Russia’s alleged interest in targeting defence executives is not unprecedented. In 2024, American intelligence reportedly uncovered a Russian plot to assassinate Armin Papperger, chief executive of Rheinmetall, one of Germany’s principal suppliers of ammunition and military equipment to Ukraine.

As EU Today previously reported, Moscow has also publicly identified European factories involved in Ukrainian drone production, increasing concerns that civilian industrial facilities could become targets of Russian operations.

European authorities have investigated suspected Russian involvement in arson, infrastructure attacks and clandestine networks. An earlier cross-border investigation into alleged assassination and sabotage preparations demonstrated how intermediaries could be recruited to conduct operations while obscuring their sponsors.

Such activity also carries political consequences. Attacks against infrastructure and industrial facilities can reinforce public fears about confrontation with Russia, particularly during elections when parties advocating accommodation with Moscow seek to exploit security concerns.

Poland has already experienced mounting Russian hybrid pressure, including threats to critical infrastructure and information operations intended to aggravate domestic political divisions.

Putin’s strategy against European rearmament

Ukraine’s continuing strikes against Russian refineries and military-industrial facilities have added economic and operational pressures to Moscow’s prolonged war effort. Russia retains substantial military production capacity, but the costs of sustaining the conflict remain considerable.

Interfering with European weapons manufacturing could serve two objectives: restricting Ukraine’s access to equipment and obstructing Europe’s longer-term rearmament.

The Kremlin does not necessarily need European governments to abandon Ukraine formally. Production delays, disrupted contracts and reluctant suppliers could reduce the practical effect of military assistance even while political commitments remain unchanged.

European governments have acknowledged the industrial challenge. In its June conclusions on European defence, the European Council called for accelerated manufacturing capacity, stronger supply chains and closer cooperation with Ukraine’s defence industry.

Russia’s apparent strategy seeks to exploit the dependence of these programmes on private companies and skilled civilian personnel.

The warnings from European intelligence agencies suggest that protecting defence executives, engineers and contractors is becoming part of the continent’s wider security responsibilities.

For Moscow, intimidation offers the possibility of weakening Ukrainian military resistance without an open confrontation with NATO. For European governments, preventing covert operations from disrupting weapons production is increasingly inseparable from their commitment to sustain Ukraine’s defence.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

No one expected that Donald Trump, after a congratulatory birthday phone call to his Russian counterpart, would declare that Russian diesel fuel would prove to be the solution to America’s current fuel shortages. If the Trump presidency has yielded anything it is a lot of interesting headlines that seem to come out of nowhere, that can sadly, quite often, fade right back into the mist from whence they came. Sometimes Trump’s words can fill us with hope like this ‘Diesel Deal’, and others like his recent UN speech, where he threatened to potentially kill all Iranians, fill us with dread. This declaration by our enigmatic leader presents a very interesting media narrative and a potential end to ‘Project Ukraine’ that is worth taking a deeper dive into.

Trump has blamed Zelensky for the global energy shortages, especially those concerning diesel fuel. At the time, everyone thought this was just a cheap Twitter-style deflection from the failed war against Iran, which certainly caused a lot of fuel transport disruption. That is to say, the White House was projecting this crisis, that it allowed to happen, or actively caused, to be thrown onto the scapegoat Zelensky. However, this form of deflection or projection is no longer just words in a pre-election narrative, but has become action. Sanctions on Russian diesel have been lifted and the first shipment is already on its way as I write these words. Something tangible has occurred.

Zelensky was actually warned some six times to stop attacking Russian oil infrastructure. Blow up children in the Donbass and beyond ‘sure’, but attacking what the West wants from Russia more than anything is ‘totally unacceptable’. Zelensky, who as stated above was warned half-a-dozen times to back of strikes on oil/gas, upon hearing of Trump’s decision to purchase Russian diesel fuel did the following:

1) He quickly attacked Russian oil infrastructure again seemingly to spite the U.S. President

2) He immediately cut off peace talks in Miami with the Trump’s aides, the Kushner-Witkoff duo, which is yet another spitting in the face of Donald Trump.

The wildest thing of all is that the ‘narcissist’ Trump has already publically thanked President Putin twice for this deal. Appearing at a rally, Americans standing behind Trump wildly cheered in favor of the announcement of peace with Russia plus extra fuel for America. Russophobia is a hobby of the globalist bourgeoisie and Epstein Island, not American truckers and farmers.

It’s a great narrative, let’s hope it lasts

Trump has now put 100% of the blame for global energy/fuel problems directly onto Zelensky, and called him out personally for keeping the war going over the last two years. Thus, the narrative is forming into something like: If the war in Ukraine is the cause of the fuel shortages, and Zelensky is the cause of the war continuing, that means the U.S. can make a deal with Russia even if ‘they started it’, with the corollary that Zelensky logically needs to go as he is the source of the problem. But going even deeper into the narrative we can see the most interesting thing of all or as they like to say online ‘the quiet part’: Trump has essentially declared that Russian energy output is of vital strategic interest to the United States.

It is these kind of words that take the black pill out of my mouth and directly inject ‘hopium’ into my bloodstream. The idea of the American President declaring that NOT being at war with Russia is of vital strategic interest to the USA is something I have been dreaming of my entire adult life. This is exactly the logic that we need to finally and ultimately end the Cold War + Project for a New American Century mentality in politics and finally allow the USA to rebuild and invest into itself. This very well could be America’s mulitpolar awakening by using a logic trap similar to the other ones that have been used to do the exact opposite and keep the USA locked in eternal foreign wars of luxury for ‘national security’. This new logic trap could look something like this: “So you want war with Russia? That must mean you want to harm America, you dirty traitor! You’ll take the fuel from farmer Joe and our kids will starve, you monster! Russia being left alone to produce fuel is a national security interest of America, are you against our country’s national security? Do you want to weaken manly America for those gay Europeans?”.

But as we slam that hopium injection into our veins we have to remember that Donald Trump has said a lot of things, changed his mind many times, or was forced to change it, and perhaps isn’t quite the unilateral decider that he makes himself out to be on TV.

It takes two to tango, but one orange man to keep his word.

The transcripts from this now famous birthday phone chat look very different on the American and Russian sides, which is par for the course. Trump’s team tends to write discussed things as proven facts whereas the Russians are more noncommittal in their language. But the diesel sanctions are gone for now and the boats are moving, so this looks to be real… at least until the mid-term votes are cast.

The American side has since threatened to cut Zelensky off from intelligence sharing, which could be an instant deathblow to their military efforts as many experts believe that only U.S. intel has allowed them to survive this long. Without such targeting data they will be sent back to 20^th century warfare instantly, and they would no longer be able to strike deep into Russia. RT wrote the following on this issue:

A Ukrainian official told Axios that Witkoff and Kushner threatened to cut off US intelligence sharing with Kiev if it continued to ignore Trump’s requests to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries, but the US official denied that any such threat had been made.

But here is where we have to hold our breath, for despite how nice this new narrative sounds, and how it is the perfect exit for the USA from its participation in Project Ukraine we should not forget the words of President Putin from some time ago when he talked about the true power of any U.S. President:

“So a person is elected — he comes with ideas… Then people with briefcases come visit him, well-dressed, in dark suits — kind of like mine.”

So the real question might be, will the Zionist Lobby, Epstein Elite, Three-Letter Organizations, Influential Billionaires, and all the other spooks on Capitol Hill actually let President Trump actually end this war? Will the POTUS be allowed to do this?

We should recall that after Zelensky acted disgracefully in the White House at the start of Trump’s second term everyone thought this conflict would be over. Trump the famous narcissist seemed visibly angry and offended on camera during their verbal spat. But the war went on. There was the Anchorage Summit, which had tons of hype and everyone thought then that the U.S. would pull support from Kiev. But it did not. Trump’s enemies including the Biden Clan are linked to massive corruption in Ukraine which has all been exposed. This would have been a great off ramp from the conflict, but Trump did not or could not take it. And in general, Trump’s rhetoric towards Zelensky and other European politicians has been overtly harsh and disrespectful. The man accused of being a ‘blowhard’ somehow always speaks quite politely behind the backs and to the faces of Putin and Xi.

Thus, although I want peace and mutually-respectful cooperation between the USA and Russia perhaps this deal will only last till the midterm elections, when all of a sudden Zelensky will go back to being “a bastard, but he’s our bastard”, and the conflict will go marching on. Perhaps this is our October Surprise from the Republican side of the aisle? And in December we can all be ‘surprised again’ when the war resumes full-force and thousands more Slavs die on the battlefield?

Now, Donald Trump with gritted teeth is slinging forth the idea that he thinks “it’s time for Ukraine to get a new President”. But after the votes are counted in America he may just go back to passively hating and tolerating Zelensky till the end of his term or till an Oreshnik finds the mark one day. We also cannot forget that the West has been lobbying for a major ceasefire from the Russians for a long time. Presumably this would be used to regroup, rest, rearm and then just go right back to fighting till the last Ukrainian. Now Trump wants elections in Kiev, which will probably demand a ceasefire to enact. But will he be pushing for a three-day ceasefire, or try to trick the Russians into agreeing to a month-long freeze or more?

One ‘good’ sign on this issue from a Russian standpoint is that there are now already calls for Zelensky to resign over this issue on Twitter/X coming from all sides even pro-Ukrainian ones:

“’Zelensky must resign’ – Ukrainian media. That was quick. Zelensky ignored Trump’s warnings not to attack Russian oil refineries SIX times. This morning, Zelensky has bombed another Russian oil refinery. Ukrainians are calling for Zelensky‘s resignation.

Former Ukrainian MP and Metinvest co-owner Vadym Novynskyi has called on Zelensky to resign and hand over all power to Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada following the Trump-Putin agreements.”

We have to remember that Ukraine in 2026 is already a police state where any dissent means you could get thrown into a bus and taken to the front to die or vanish into a prison as a Russian ‘spy’. Thus, when important people gang up against Zelensky openly it is much more of a potent statement than Hollywood actors safely making Tik-Toks against Trump from their luxurious bedrooms.

The rest of the world won’t sit around and do nothing.

Some moronic ‘Putin sold out the BRICS’ counter-narrative is sure to arise from Kiev’s bot accounts soon. Obviously someone is going to say that the Kremlin threw their Iranian brothers to the Zio-lobby machine! But in actuality, it looks like the Iranians are going to just ship their oil through Russia and sell it as ‘Russian’ and everyone will be happy. The Caspian Sea will be even more busy in the near future. If sanctioned accomplished anything they really increased trade between Russia and Iran.

No one in Moscow is planning on selling out Tehran; they want America to join the Multipolar World while still saving face and reduce the global threat level of nuclear war which is vastly too high at present. Iran and China were surely consulted on this issue before any Diesel Deal was finalized.

The real danger of Trump calling for the removal of Zelensky comes from Europe, where certain factions, politicians and their financiers may take radical action in response. And Trump’s reaction to this response could be even more radical now. Would it be possible that NATO might greenlight the Baltics to just open up another front to ‘see what happens’? Will France finally go through on its threat and just deploy troops openly en masse to save the Napoleon in Green from political or potentially physical death? So far the EU has only threatened even more sanctions. If the previous 20+ packages of sanctions failed, I wonder what is left to actually sanction. Ursula is promising the biggest and most expansive sanctions packet for Monday, October 12^th, but I doubt it will change anything. The only thing that would change the situation is if the EU did something really aggressive, drastic and stupid militarily.

What about the rest of the sanctions?

The Russian media has done a disservice to the public by writing that “Trump will lift sanctions” over-and-over again when the only sanctions being lifted are on diesel exports for half a year. All of the rest of the sanctions are still there. You still cannot fly directly from Moscow to New York, and money transfers via SWIFT are still mostly blocked. We have to remember that at least in theory sanctions are a form of punishment for crimes committed against, in this case, international law and the United States. So how can relations between the USA and Russian Federation truly be normalized when one still accuses the other of crimes it believes it did not even commit?

After Project Ukraine ends things could change rapidly, but there can be no true friendship until Washington trusts Aeroflot enough to let them land on U.S. territory. We cannot be both under a sanctions war and normalized at the same time. But this new Trump narrative, if he can stick with it to its logical conclusion, is the perfect off-ramp for America and the way we can finally end this war and go back to some sense of normalcy with the apocalypse pushed far off into the future beyond all of our lifespans.

Liliana Reis alerta que a aproximação entre os dois líderes ameaça a Europa se os EUA reduzirem o apoio a Kiev. Destaca ainda que os ataques no Iémen criam dilemas de segurança aos EUA.

On the night of March 20, 2024, unusually humid and mild in London, three people in their twenties pulled up at an industrial estate in the east of the city in a cherry-red Kia Picanto. They went inside, set fire to a warehouse, and filmed the blaze on a cellphone. The video of the flames consuming the premises ended up in the hands of another 20-year-old, Dylan Earl, who was reached via the Telegram messaging app by the Russian paramilitary organization Wagner, linked to the Kremlin, which had in turn recruited others to do the dirty work. One of the burned units contained humanitarian aid and Starlink satellite equipment destined for Ukraine. According to the British investigation, the three young men who lit the fuse did not know they were actually working for Russia.

Seguir leyendo

© Jens Schlueter (Getty Images)

Australia has no need to buy fuel from Russia, despite US President Donald Trump’s move to bring Russian diesel back to world markets. Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says that imports from Russia will remain banned to ensure the country does not benefit from its invasion of Ukraine, Bloomberg reports.

Trump has agreed with Russia's President Vladimir Putin to release Russian diesel onto global markets, a move Ukraine says funds a war that has killed more than 80 Ukrainian civilians in two days.

“We don’t need or want Russian fuel in Australia. We do not want Vladimir Putin to benefit from this war in the Middle East. What the United States does is a matter for them, but we won’t be changing our approach,” Bowen said.

The deal Australia is turning down

Trump announced on 9 October a series of cargoes beginning this month totaling about 13.5 million barrels of Russian diesel. The release upends years of sanctions, as the White House looks for ways to tame soaring fuel prices before the US midterm elections.

Bowen draws a clear line between that approach and Australia’s. What the US does is its own affair, he stresses, but Canberra will maintain its arrangements with trading partners to keep Russian fuel out of the market.

Enough fuel to hold the line

Australia can hold out without Russian supply, Bowen argues. The country has 43 days’ worth of petrol, two days more than a week earlier, and 31 days’ worth of diesel, one day less, he notes.

He adds that Australia stays in close contact with domestic refiners to keep them running at full capacity. The stance lets Canberra wait out high prices rather than buy fuel that would send money to Moscow.

Australia’s fuel costs have stayed high since the war between the US and Iran disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the route that normally carries about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas.

US President Donald Trump said on 9 October that he had agreed with Russian leader Vladimir Putin to bring Russian diesel to world markets to lower energy prices. However, energy analysts say the deal, which drew fury in Ukraine, is unlikely to lower diesel prices meaningfully, CNN reports.

Trump wrote on social media that Putin would “immediately supply” more than 300,000 tons of diesel, with another 500,000 tons in November. Together, those volumes would cover about a day and a half of US demand, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Meanwhile, former head of the Center for Countering Disinformation Andrii Kovalenko says that US diesel consumption alone is about 16 million tons per month, and global consumption is roughly 120 million tons.

The US experts read the move as politics more than a market shift. Trump spoke in tons rather than barrels because the figure looks bigger to an ordinary observer, said Dan Pickering, founder of Pickering Energy Partners, calling it “more politics than a game changer.”

Doubts Russia can even deliver

Former US officials question whether Putin holds the diesel Trump described, as Ukrainian strikes strain Russia’s refineries. A former senior State Department official says it hardly matters whether the fuel arrives, because Putin “has already achieved the result he wants,” with Trump believing he has a pre-election card that could move markets.

Even if the fuel flows, it would be a temporary measure. Gregory Brew of Eurasia Group says that he suspects Putin expects Ukraine to halt its strikes on Russian refineries in return, and that he cannot imagine Zelenskyy agreeing.

A win for Putin without conditions

For Putin, the gain is plain, Kovalenko says: he pushes for sanctions relief and for no new US sanctions, all without any demand to end the war in Ukraine.

"Trump’s bet was more on the news itself, driving prices down somewhat, because, in reality, figures like these shouldn’t bring prices down," Kovalеnkо believes.

He adds that Trump will "make a big fuss about diesel ahead of the elections, nothing more," and that the average American is unlikely to feel any lasting effect.”

Earlier, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned that allowing Russia to sell petroleum products abroad without securing a lasting de-escalation agreement would help finance Moscow's war against Ukraine.

He criticized the decision, calling it "a birthday gift for Putin," per Axios.

The next day after the announcement, Russia launched six bombs on Zaporizhzhia, killing 17 people.

El presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, declaró el viernes que había logrado un acuerdo con su homólogo ruso, Vladímir Putin, para abastecer a los mercados con diésel ruso, en…

Russia’s demands for the extradition of International Criminal Court judges and Washington’s sweeping sanctions against the institution have converged within days. The two governments have different grievances, but the consequences of their actions increasingly overlap, raising questions about the political relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and the future of international criminal justice.

Russia and the United States have intensified their campaigns against the International Criminal Court (ICC) almost simultaneously, exposing an increasingly consequential convergence between the policies of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

On 8 October, Moscow demanded the extradition of ICC President Tomoko Akane and eight other current and former officials. The following day, Washington announced sanctions against the court as an institution, extending earlier measures against individual judges and prosecutors.

The timing raises an obvious question: are these independent campaigns arising from different disputes with international justice, or do they reflect a broader political understanding between Washington and Moscow?

There is no publicly established evidence of a coordinated operation or an agreement between Trump and Putin to undermine the ICC. Nevertheless, the strategic consequences of their respective actions are remarkably similar. Both weaken an institution pursuing criminal proceedings against political leaders whom the two governments seek to protect.

Different grievances, overlapping interests

Russia’s hostility towards the ICC is directly connected to the arrest warrant issued against Putin in March 2023 over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied territories.

The court subsequently issued warrants against senior Russian military commanders, including Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, over alleged crimes involving attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.

Moscow’s response has been to pursue ICC personnel through its own criminal justice system. The latest extradition demands follow convictions handed down in absentia by a Russian court in December 2025.

Washington’s confrontation with the ICC has a different immediate origin. The Trump administration objects to the court’s jurisdiction over American nationals and Israeli officials, particularly following the arrest warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has presented the American campaign as a defence of US sovereignty. Yet the sanctions announced on 9 October are not confined to the Israeli proceedings or any investigation involving American personnel.

They target the institution itself, potentially disrupting financial transactions and commercial relationships essential to its operation. This distinction matters because a court-wide restriction necessarily affects investigations beyond those cited by Washington. That includes Ukraine.

The Anchorage question

The political context cannot be separated from the relationship between Trump and Putin, including their meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2025.

The summit formed part of Trump’s efforts to negotiate directly with Moscow over the war in Ukraine. The American president has repeatedly treated relations with Putin as a question of diplomatic bargaining, seeking arrangements that might produce an agreement where conventional Western pressure has failed.

Against this background, suggestions that pressure on the ICC might form part of a wider accommodation with Moscow warrant scrutiny. However, the proposition that Trump specifically offered Putin assistance in neutralising the court during their Anchorage discussions remains unsubstantiated. There is no verified public account establishing such a commitment.

A more defensible conclusion is that Washington’s independently declared campaign against the ICC also advances an important Russian interest. For Putin, the benefit is clear. Measures designed to restrict the court’s financial and administrative capacity could complicate investigations into Russian conduct, irrespective of the American administration’s stated intentions.

The relationship therefore need not involve explicit coordination to produce politically significant results.

Why sanctions against the institution matter

The escalation from targeting individual prosecutors to sanctioning the entire ICC represents a substantial change. Previous American measures imposed personal and financial restrictions on selected officials. The latest approach threatens the broader infrastructure upon which international criminal proceedings depend.

The court requires banking facilities, secure communications, technology services and commercial suppliers. American sanctions can reach beyond US territory because of the international financial system’s dependence on dollar transactions and American service providers.

The ICC had already anticipated this vulnerability. According to details disclosed in September, the institution has pursued alternatives to American software and financial services to reduce its exposure.

Nevertheless, operational continuity and investigative effectiveness are not necessarily the same thing. The court may remain formally functional while facing additional costs, delays and restrictions affecting prosecutors, investigators and international cooperation.

For Ukraine, this is particularly significant. The ICC holds and evaluates evidence connected to alleged Russian war crimes, including the deportation of children and attacks on civilian infrastructure. Its proceedings preserve a judicial process independent of whatever diplomatic settlement Washington and Moscow might eventually negotiate.

Weakening that capacity would not invalidate existing warrants or automatically destroy evidence, but it could make the pursuit of accountability more difficult.

Europe’s response and its limitations

The European Union now faces a dispute with Washington over an institution that European governments have spent decades supporting.

On 9 October, eight governments issued a joint statement, reaffirming their support for the ICC and rejecting the American sanctions. The signatories included Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, Japan and Canada.

The European Commission also indicated that the EU was prepared to take measures necessary to preserve the court’s operations. Such assurances are politically important, but they do not automatically resolve the practical consequences of American restrictions.

European financial institutions and technology suppliers must consider their own exposure to US sanctions. Sustaining the court may require alternative payment arrangements, commercial protections and potentially further European regulatory intervention.

The EU has discussed extending its blocking statute to shield European operators from the effects of American sanctions. Whether that mechanism can provide sufficient protection remains uncertain.

The dispute also extends beyond the ICC’s current investigations. Ukraine and the Council of Europe are developing a separate Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression, designed to address jurisdictional limitations preventing the ICC from prosecuting Russia’s leadership for the decision to launch the invasion.

The two institutions have distinct legal mandates, although cooperation between them is envisaged. Undermining the ICC would not automatically prevent the special tribunal from operating, but it would weaken an important part of the wider international accountability framework.

A convergence with consequences for Ukraine

Washington and Moscow have not adopted identical positions towards the ICC. Russia seeks to discredit and punish the officials responsible for pursuing Putin. The Trump administration is attempting to restrict the court’s authority and operational capacity, principally in response to proceedings involving Americans and Israelis.

Yet their actions converge at precisely the point where the ICC’s independence becomes politically inconvenient. The distinction between motive and consequence is essential. It would be premature to describe the American sanctions as evidence of a secret bargain struck in Anchorage. It would be equally mistaken to overlook the assistance these measures could provide to Moscow.

The broader concern is that the United States, traditionally central to Western efforts to hold Russia accountable for its invasion of Ukraine, is now applying pressure to one of the principal institutions carrying out that work.

For European governments, the immediate question is no longer simply whether they support the International Criminal Court. It is whether they are prepared to protect its practical independence when the political and financial pressure comes not only from Russia, but also from Washington.

As Russian missiles continue to devastate Ukraine, Germany’s disgraced former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder finds time to celebrate Vladimir Putin’s birthday. His latest Moscow pilgrimage is another reminder of the scandalous relationship between German political power and Russian energy money.

There are few spectacles quite so nauseating as a former democratic leader enthusiastically embracing the dictator whose aggression has brought death and destruction to Europe.

Yet there was Gerhard Schröder, Germany’s former Chancellor, grinning alongside Vladimir Putin at the Russian president’s 74th birthday celebrations, apparently oblivious to the moral obscenity of the occasion.

According to Reuters, Schröder visited Putin’s home in Moscow, where the two old friends were photographed smiling and shaking hands against a suitably cosy backdrop of traditional Russian furnishings.

How touching. While Ukrainians endure another year of Russian bombardment, Schröder enjoys the hospitality of the man responsible.

The photographs could scarcely provide a more damning illustration of how completely one of Germany’s former leaders has lost his moral compass.

From German Chancellor to Kremlin’s Favourite German

Schröder’s relationship with Putin has long since ceased to be merely an embarrassing personal friendship. It represents one of the most troubling examples of the revolving door between European political office and Russian commercial interests.

Having served as German Chancellor between 1998 and 2005, Schröder promptly embarked upon a remarkably lucrative second career in the Russian energy industry.

His involvement with Nord Stream was particularly scandalous.

While still Chancellor, Schröder championed the Baltic Sea gas pipeline linking Russia directly to Germany. Shortly after leaving office, he accepted a senior position with the consortium responsible for the project.

The arrangement raised an obvious and deeply uncomfortable question: had German energy policy been shaped exclusively by national interests, or had the groundwork also been laid for an exceptionally rewarding retirement?

There is no need to allege criminal wrongdoing to recognise the appalling appearance of a conflict of interest.

Schröder subsequently became chairman of the supervisory board of Rosneft, Russia’s state-controlled oil giant, in 2017.

This was three years after Putin’s illegal annexation of Crimea, when any responsible European statesman should already have understood the dangers of strengthening Moscow’s financial and strategic position.

Instead, Schröder continued to prosper within the Russian energy establishment.

Nord Stream: The Pipeline That Helped Putin

The Nord Stream controversy was never simply about natural gas.

It was about geopolitical leverage, European security and the extraordinary willingness of successive German governments to disregard warnings from Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states.

Those countries understood precisely what Berlin preferred not to acknowledge: energy dependence on an authoritarian Russia was a strategic vulnerability.

Schröder became one of the most prominent advocates of precisely that dependence.

The Nord Stream 2 project subsequently became entangled in further controversy surrounding a foundation established in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, ostensibly for environmental purposes, which helped companies involved in completing the pipeline navigate American sanctions.

The foundation received €20 million from Nord Stream 2 AG. The affair prompted parliamentary scrutiny and questions about Russian corporate influence over German political decision-making.

Schröder’s involvement in the wider Nord Stream enterprise remains a central feature of that controversy.

No Shame, No Apology

Even Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 failed to produce the moral reckoning that Schröder’s conduct demanded.

He eventually relinquished his Rosneft position and declined a proposed Gazprom board appointment. His political reputation, however, was already in ruins.

The Bundestag stripped him of his parliamentary office and staff privileges. His own Social Democratic Party faced demands to expel him, although attempts to remove him ultimately failed.

Yet Schröder apparently remains incapable of recognising why his behaviour disgusts so many Germans.

His latest Moscow appearance has provoked outrage from Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whose government described the birthday visit as profoundly immoral. SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil condemned it as completely unacceptable.

A Useful Friend for the Kremlin

There is another dimension to this disgrace.

Putin has previously suggested that Schröder could serve as an intermediary in negotiations concerning European security. European governments understandably rejected the proposal.

Why would Europe entrust its security to a man whose professional judgement has been so closely associated with Russian commercial interests?

Schröder’s latest Russian appointment, on the supervisory board of supermarket operator Hyperglobus, merely reinforces the impression that Moscow remains an irresistible attraction.

Perhaps he regards himself as a bridge between Russia and Germany. If so, it is a bridge built upon extraordinary political misjudgement.

Schröder is entitled to choose his friends. Europeans are equally entitled to judge him by those choices.

History will remember that, while Ukraine fought for its survival, a former German Chancellor travelled to Moscow to celebrate the birthday of Vladimir Putin, the man directing its destruction.

It is difficult to imagine a more humiliating epitaph for a once-powerful European statesman.

Main Image: Kremlin.ru

President Donald Trump announced an agreement with Vladimir Putin on Friday, 9th October, under which Russia will resume substantial diesel exports to American and international markets, despite Washington’s existing sanctions against Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine.

According to Trump’s announcement following the telephone conversation, Russia will immediately release more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel, followed by 500,000 tonnes in November and another million tonnes shortly afterwards. A further three million tonnes could become available once Russian refining capacity permits.

The announcement was accompanied by a temporary authorisation from the US Treasury allowing transactions involving Russian diesel until 7 April 2027. It represents a substantial departure from the administration’s recent sanctions policy, which had sought to restrict Russian energy revenues and strengthen Washington’s negotiating position over Ukraine.

The timing is politically significant. Trump faces congressional midterm elections on 3 November, while diesel prices have become a growing economic concern for American businesses and consumers. The agreement gives the White House an opportunity to present itself as addressing fuel costs, although its practical effect on prices remains uncertain.

Russian diesel cannot resolve the global supply shortage

Trump has linked the proposed Russian deliveries to his administration’s efforts to restore energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that the combined measures will produce a rapid reduction in diesel prices.

The disruption of maritime energy supplies following the confrontation with Iran has, however, created a problem considerably larger than the quantities Russia has initially promised.

The first two deliveries amount to approximately 800,000 tonnes. Even including the subsequent million tonnes, the announced volumes are modest relative to global consumption. Their arrival may provide temporary relief in individual markets, but there is little evidence that they could independently reverse the wider shortage.

Russia’s capacity to maintain larger exports is also uncertain.

Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have disrupted production and contributed to restrictions on petroleum exports. Moscow has periodically imposed limits to protect domestic supplies, while damaged facilities require repairs before returning to normal operations.

The condition of those refineries is explicitly acknowledged in Trump’s announcement, which makes the proposed additional three million tonnes dependent on their recovery.

This introduces a further contradiction. Washington is seeking Russian diesel at precisely the moment Ukraine is attempting to reduce Moscow’s capacity to refine and export petroleum products.

The economic benefits of the agreement may consequently depend partly on developments in a military campaign that the United States has previously supported through intelligence cooperation with Kyiv.

Zelenskyy rejects sanctions relief without Russian concessions

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded critically to the agreement, describing the relaxation of economic pressure as a concession to Putin that had not been accompanied by any meaningful Russian commitment to de-escalation.

In his response to the American decision, Zelenskyy argued that Moscow would exploit renewed export revenues to prolong its war rather than make concessions towards a settlement.

Ukraine has indicated that it remains prepared to consider reciprocal measures concerning attacks on energy infrastructure. Such arrangements would require Russia to stop striking Ukrainian facilities in exchange for restrictions on Ukrainian operations against Russian energy targets.

No comparable undertaking was announced as part of Friday’s diesel agreement.

This distinction is central to Kyiv’s objections. Sanctions relief has traditionally been regarded as leverage to obtain changes in Russian behaviour. In the present arrangement, Moscow stands to receive additional commercial opportunities without publicly agreeing to alter its military campaign.

Lukoil negotiations raise further questions

The agreement also comes amid separate discussions concerning the international assets of Lukoil, Russia’s second-largest oil producer.

A recent account of negotiations involving American investors and Russian officials described proposals involving Lukoil’s overseas oilfields, refineries and distribution businesses.

The discussions have reportedly involved figures connected to Trump’s diplomatic efforts, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, alongside Russian representatives.

On Friday, another development complicated the proposed transaction when Carlyle withdrew from the competition to acquire Lukoil’s international assets, previously valued at approximately $22 billion.

The negotiations illustrate the extent to which potential commercial cooperation has entered the broader American-Russian relationship.

There is no verified evidence, however, that the diesel agreement was concluded to facilitate a particular acquisition or benefit individuals connected to Trump’s administration. The commercial negotiations and Friday’s sanctions decision remain separate developments unless further evidence establishes a direct connection.

Washington and Europe move in different directions

The American decision creates an additional complication for European sanctions policy.

On 7th October, EU ambassadors agreed to expand sanctions against Russia’s military-industrial network, approving 1,646 additional designations, many directed at the production of ballistic missiles used against Ukraine.

Britain has also introduced further restrictions on Russian oil-related businesses, tankers and financial intermediaries, reinforcing its stated objective of limiting Moscow’s ability to finance the war.

The contrast with Washington’s diesel authorisation is substantial. While European governments are attempting to restrict Russian petroleum revenues, the United States is providing a temporary legal route for renewed sales.

The development also recalls the difficulties already examined by EU Today in its reporting on sanctions enforcement against Russia’s shadow fleet, where differences in national restrictions and their application have complicated efforts to control petroleum exports.

For Moscow, the significance of Friday’s agreement extends beyond the immediate revenue generated by diesel sales. It establishes that the United States is prepared to relax particular economic restrictions before securing a settlement over Ukraine.

Whether the arrangement ultimately lowers American fuel prices will depend on production, shipping and international market conditions. The diplomatic consequence is already apparent: Russia has obtained an opportunity to restore part of its international energy trade without accepting publicly announced conditions concerning its war against Ukraine.

For Kyiv and European governments, the question is whether this remains a narrowly defined response to an energy shortage or marks the beginning of a broader American policy of separating commercial relations with Moscow from negotiations over Ukraine.

Am Freitagabend fand wieder ein Telefonat zwischen den Präsidenten Trump und Putin statt, das das anderthalb Stunden gedauert hat. Präsident Trump sprach danach in einem Post auf TruthSocial von einem sehr „erfolgreichen Gespräch“. Später teilte er noch mit, er habe sich mit Putin auf Diesellieferungen in die USA geeinigt. Das sei ein großer Deal, der […]

Trump garante que Putin, se comprometeu com 300 mil toneladas de gasóleo "para o mercado americano e mundial". Ainda, Proteção Civil do Panamá apela a cidadãos para manterem a calma após sismos.

Alya: You say that Russia’s forcible transfer of Ukrainian children is the crime of genocide. In international law, genocide is defined by Article 6 of the Rome Statute. What would it take to change this legal framework to include the deportation and militarization of Ukrainian children? And is the Office of the Prosecutor in any position to do that work under current US sanctions and Karim Khan’s leave?

Kateryna: We don’t need to change any legal frameworks to prosecute what the Russians are doing with Ukrainian children. Militarization and political indoctrination, as well as Russification of young Ukrainians, is a part of Russia’s bigger strategy to destroy Ukraine as a sovereign state and to subjugate everything in the Ukrainian nation to the Russian influence and control. I don’t see legal problems; we simply still lack the political will to call the crimes by their proper names.

The UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention posits that all states that signed the convention, 154 as of today, should act to stop it—not only those affected by genocide. If the international community recognized what the Russians are doing as a crime of genocide, it would mean that yet another time in history the international community was not able to prevent genocide, to recognize some early warnings, to react properly to what the Russians did, for example, in occupied Crimea or Donbas before 2022. It is not easy, and the international community and world political leaders should be mature enough to face all these challenges, recognize that they were involved in the commission of these crimes through silence and inaction, and finally stop it.

So that is why, according to the Rome Statute, the Office of the Prosecutor can start an investigation of the crime of genocide in the Ukrainian context. It is possible: the ICC’s Ukraine-situation investigation in March 2022, supported by 43 states, included not only war crimes and crimes against humanity, but also the crime of genocide. So we have all the legal tools and means, but politically it is very difficult.

Recently, there has been a global shift towards this—in the context of the war between Arabian states and Israel, not Ukraine. But for example, Israel’s attacks against Gaza’s education have already been termed "scholasticide," so as a part of the genocidal intent, as a part of the crime of genocide. So for us lawyers and human rights defenders, this is the task—to push the international community to do the same with Russia. It is not easy because Russia is one of the five "world policemen" expected to maintain this international legal order.

I believe that, perhaps in decades, but we will see how Russia’s actions will be recognized as the crime of genocide. The forcible transfer of children from one group to another group is the fifth universally recognized element of the crime of genocide.

Alya: Your organization was involved in documenting this. How does this pipeline actually work?

Kateryna: Yes, let's take Olga Druzhinina, who fostered four children from the occupied territories of Ukraine. Her story is very interesting: first, it seemed that she could be just an ordinary Russian brainwashed by TV shows about children from Donbas. But then we found that Olga is very close to [former Russian President] Medvedev, and through Medvedev to President Putin. Olga is the head of one non-governmental organization, "Semia Arktiki" [Family of the Arctic], and this organization aims to find foster parents for orphans— now including orphans from occupied territories of Ukraine. The co-head of this organization also fostered Ukrainian children.

It is a very well-built, pre-planned architecture of people involved in the commission of this crime—not some sporadic reaction to the full-scale invasion. They planned to do it. And I will not be surprised if, in the future, we find that these families also adopted children from Crimea or from Donbas even before 2022.

Her husband is a veteran of the Russian Armed Forces. He participated in many wars of the Russian regime, including the wars in Chechnya. It was clearly against the child's best interest to be sent to the family of this Russian serviceman and his wife. So their case was widely publicized. We recorded many different details. Later, we found photos of these children in the "Warrior Center" camp in Novosibirsk, and her foster daughter from occupied Ukraine wearing a St.George’s [Russian imperial] ribbon and in military uniform.

So the Ukrainian identity of these children was completely eradicated. It was prohibited to mention that they were Ukrainians, and the main goal of this family was to repress their unloyalty to the Russian state, to re-educate them, mold them into Russian patriots. Unfortunately, I don’t know the fate of these teenagers from Mariupol, but as far as I know, they were not returned to Ukraine. And now they are already young adults—meaning they will soon be conscripted into the Russian army. They have this military duty because they were forcibly given Russian citizenship. And young children also remain under the control of Olga and his husband.

Olga and her husband are members of the so-called "Putin Team." They were recognized many times as the best family of the Yamalo-Nenets region. The governor of Yamal-Nenets is also Putin's person. His candidacy was supported by Putin for re-election to this position. And this governor has many times mentioned that Ukrainian children from the occupied territories of Ukraine were accepted by foster families from his region, even without the proper documents.

It is very difficult to influence their behavior without sanctions. In this sphere of foster care, the balance between placing children in Russian institutions and Russian families is hard to find. Russia presents only two options for the forcibly transferred Ukrainian children: Russian boarding institutions or Russian foster families. And of course, ordinary people think: a family is better than a boarding institution. The truth is that there is a third option: just return these children to Ukraine, to their homes.

And I would like to highlight that, according to the order of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, these children from institutions will not be returned to boarding institutions in Ukraine. They will inevitably be placed with a foster family, and they can participate in choosing this family or changing it. Ukraine is doing its best to guarantee that its actions comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but unfortunately, Russians are very hard to persuade to return these orphanage children.

Alya: On 11 May 2026, the EU Council sanctioned 16 individuals and seven entities for the systematic unlawful deportation, forced transfer, and forced assimilation of Ukrainian children, including through indoctrination and militarized education. Your organization pushed for these sanctions. Are they working?

Kateryna: In January–February 2026, we criticized the European Union’s sanctions policy. New persons were being added to lists, but we found that the level of coordination and harmonization of sanctions policies was only 5%. Only 13 individuals and three organizations were under sanctions in all jurisdictions analyzed by us: Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, the European Union, Switzerland, and Japan. It was terrifying because sanctions exist, yet they are riddled by many loopholes and are actually inefficient.

That is why we started persuading them to do something with this system. And on 11 May, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union synchronized their sanctions packages: the people are included in all jurisdictions. For us, this is a big achievement.

Another achievement: a shift in their perception of where this vertical of guilty persons ends. Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova—okay; ministers, children's rights ombudspersons at the regional level, heads of the occupation authorities—okay. But what about the "ordinary" Russian people who fostered poor Ukrainian children and now contribute to their militarization? The 11 May sanctions saw the United Kingdom and Canada listing ordinary Russians, like the family from Yamalo-Nenets that fostered four Ukrainian children, including teenagers from Mariupol, and then sent them to re-education camps of the "Center Warrior" to be militarized as Russian soldiers.

If these results of our work seem small, we must remember that for the Russians, it is a very sensitive issue. They are mad because of the sanctions—and this was visible when the “Yolochka” boarding institution in occupied Crimea’s Simferopol, called a “concentration camp” by ordinary Russians, was sanctioned. Already in December 2014 [after Russia’s occupation of east Ukraine], the first Ukrainian orphans were sent to Russian foster families from this “Yolochka.” 12 years later, children from Kherson boarding institutions also went through “Yolochka.”

Alya: You've documented over 20,500 deported children. How many of that cohort are approaching Russian conscription age?

Kateryna: It is hard to tell because the way the Ukrainian side is collecting statistics is not good enough. So you should address this question to the competent bodies of Ukraine.

But according to our calculations, just to describe the situation in general: all Ukrainian teenagers under Russian control start receiving draft notices at the age of 16. According to the Russian legislation, it should be at the age of 17, but they're so afraid that these children will escape or will return to Ukrainian-controlled territories, that they start this process in violation of their own legislation.

Everything is organized around schools. They’re not about education under occupation, but have become additional buildings of the military commissariat. Specific teachers are responsible for this conscription process. Boys aged 16-17 are being brought to the military commissariat in organized groups. You cannot escape, you cannot refuse, because you will hear “knock-knock” on your door: the occupation authorities and your teacher will ask: “Where are you? You should go.”

Another problem: Russia and Belarus started exchanging data, meaning that if this child receives a draft notice at the age of 18, he will not be able to cross the border—which matters because the checkpoint of Mokrany-Domanove between Belarus and Ukraine is the main point of returning Ukrainian children from Russian control. Every year, the Russians amend their legislation to impose more obstacles to the repatriation process.

So the only way for a Ukrainian teenage boy to escape is to do this several days before a "povestka" [draft notice] comes to his house at 16 years.

According to our intelligence, since 2014, 48,000 Ukrainians from occupied territories were forcibly mobilized by Russians, including those from occupied Crimea. Some of them participated in the "special military operation.” Around 20% of all prisoners of war in Ukrainian camps for Russians are originally Ukrainians who were forced to sign a military contract. Many of them were forced, manipulated, or brainwashed, so it was not done of their own will.

But I would like to highlight that the average age of a Russian soldier is 35. This is not the war of young Ukrainians who reached the age of majority and were sent to the battlefield as cannon fodder. We see that the Russians’ main goal is to rebuild the army degraded by the Ukrainian side during the first month of the full-scale invasion, to have officers and other qualified personnel who will develop a strategy and conquer more and more territory. That is why they're investing in all these military patriotic movements and centers.

That is why I was really impressed when I saw that their All-Russian championship on drone racing will be for children aged seven. Should we next expect that children in kindergartens will assemble and disassemble a rifle? Their society is very militarized. This is the biggest problem. And now, Russian soldiers are those who are teaching Ukrainian children to fight tomorrow.

Alya: Thank you so much, Kateryna, for your time.

The deal aims to keep fuel prices in the United States in check ahead of the midterm elections

US President Donald Trump announced a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin for Moscow to supply millions of tons of diesel fuel to American and global markets. 

The announcement would give Russia a major opportunity to sell fuel abroad at a time when Ukraine is targeting its oil industry to deprive Moscow of revenue and disrupt the resources sustaining its invasion. The US president has increasingly called for Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian oil infrastructure in recent weeks, blaming Ukraine for high fuel prices in the US.

Trump’s push for Kyiv to halt those attacks, alongside his effort to secure Russian fuel supplies, risks undermining Ukraine’s campaign to put economic pressure on the Kremlin while the US seeks to contain the fallout from its war with Iran.

Trump promises millions of tons of diesel from Russia

In a 9 October post on Truth Social, Trump said Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by another 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons shortly afterward. He also announced a possible additional delivery of 3 million tons, conditional on the state of Russian refineries.

“Diesel Prices for Americans and, indeed, the World, will be COMING DOWN, IN RECORD NUMBERS, AND FAST!” Trump wrote, describing lower fuel prices as a top priority for American farmers, ranchers, and truckers.

Trump's announcement did not explain how the promised volumes would be reconciled with the condition of Russian refineries amid ongoing Ukrainian strikes, which he cited as a factor determining the timing of later deliveries.

Trump has pressed Ukraine to stop targeting Russian refineries

The announcement comes after Trump repeatedly blamed Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil infrastructure for worsening global diesel shortages and driving up fuel prices.

Ukraine has continued targeting Russian oil facilities as part of its campaign to undermine Moscow's war economy. Ukrainian strikes have damaged refining capacity, contributed to fuel shortages inside Russia, and forced Moscow to restrict fuel exports. 

Kyiv has argued that the attacks put pressure on Russia's ability to finance and sustain its war against Ukraine.

Iran war drives fuel prices higher, not Ukraine

The rise in US fuel prices stems largely from the US-Israeli war with Iran and its disruption of global energy supplies, according to Reuters. The conflict has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supplies normally pass, pushing energy prices higher. 

Trump has nevertheless blamed Ukraine's refinery strikes for rising fuel costs while pressing Kyiv to halt them.

Ukraine's attacks on Russian oil infrastructure are intended to weaken Moscow's war economy. By contrast, the disruption to global energy shipments stems largely from the conflict with Iran. 

Zelenskyy warns Russian diesel deal would fund further attacks on Ukraine

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned later on 9 October that allowing Russia to sell petroleum products abroad without securing a lasting de-escalation agreement would help finance Moscow's war against Ukraine.

“Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged,” Zelenskyy said, responding to Trump's announcement of a proposed Russian diesel supply deal.

Zelenskyy said Ukraine's strikes on Russian oil refineries and other oil facilities were a response to Russia's years-long campaign against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. He offered a reciprocal arrangement under which Ukraine would stop striking Russian refineries if Russia stopped destroying Ukrainian energy facilities, saying the United States had sufficient leverage to secure such an agreement.

“Ukraine will not burn Russian oil refining facilities if Russia does not destroy our energy infrastructure,” Zelenskyy said.

He also urged Washington to maintain pressure on Moscow, including sanctions under the proposed Graham legislation, and to continue supporting Ukraine's defense. Zelenskyy argued that easing sanctions without a clear, sustained de-escalation agreement would signal weakness and give Russia more time and resources to continue the war.

“Gifts to Putin will not bring peace,” Zelenskyy said, warning that Russia would respond to diesel supplies with further terror and attacks. He called on the United States to pursue a reciprocal de-escalation agreement and press Russia to stop its attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

U.S. President Donald Trump added that Russia would then deliver 3 million tons of diesel fuel within a short period of time, based on the condition of its diesel refineries

U.S. President Donald Trump added that Russia would then deliver 3 million tons of diesel fuel within a short period of time, based on the condition of its diesel refineries

Si la puerta que, según Moscú, está abierta, en realidad está cerrada, es por este lado; y no fue Roma quien la cerró por iniciativa propia.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Una cumbre de Valdai fuera de la sede

Lo que voy a compartir en este artículo es menos técnico y más personal de lo habitual. Se trata de la información recopilada a lo largo de varios días de diálogo, debate y, al parecer, una pregunta «escandalosa» que se convirtió en una sensación mediática en Europa, porque le pregunté al presidente de la Federación Rusa, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, qué será de Europa.

Puedes encontrar el video completo del discurso de Vladimir Putin en el Foro de Valdai aquí.

Puedes encontrar mis comentarios y las respuestas de Putin aquí.

Este año, el Foro de Valdai no se reunió en Sochi. Las invitaciones enviadas en el verano aún indicaban esa ciudad del Mar Negro como sede, pero luego, a finales de agosto, los organizadores anunciaron el traslado a la región de Moscú.

Según el FT, el Servicio Federal de Protección exigió el traslado, preocupado por la amenaza de los drones ucranianos tras un verano de ataques contra refinerías costeras. Este detalle logístico tiene su propia importancia.

La guerra —que en Valdai siempre se discute en términos del sistema internacional— ahora también está influyendo en la organización práctica del foro.

La 23.ª Reunión Anual se llevó a cabo del 28 de septiembre al 1 de octubre bajo un título que, para un europeo, suena casi como una pregunta personal: «Responsabilidad por el futuro: ¿Los límites de lo posible o posibilidades ilimitadas?».

La inauguración contó con la presentación del informe anual del Club, Keep Calm. El Estado y la responsabilidad por el futuro, que los autores presentan —con un guiño a Kubrick— como un manual para dejar de preocuparse y aprender a amar el caos. A esto le siguieron nueve sesiones temáticas, una sesión especial y, el último día, la sesión plenaria con el presidente.

Llegué como italiano y como europeo, sabiendo que en esos salones ambas identidades tienen un peso diferente. A lo largo de la semana, hablé, en particular, con cuatro interlocutores de alto nivel: Sergey Karaganov, Maksim Oreshkin, Sergey Lavrov y, durante la sesión plenaria, Vladimir Putin.

Las tres primeras conversaciones tuvieron lugar al margen de las sesiones, y las relato a partir de mis notas —en esencia, no palabra por palabra—. El cuarto intercambio es público y está documentado mediante una transcripción, de la cual cito directamente.

Tomados uno por uno, los cuatro diálogos transmiten cosas con las que ya está familiarizado cualquiera que siga el debate ruso. Sin embargo, cuando se observan en secuencia, pintan un panorama más claro: una evaluación compartida de Europa y cuatro formas diferentes de sacar conclusiones de ella. Y, sobre todo, un futuro que de ninguna manera es prometedor.

Karaganov: Europa como fuente del mal

Sergei Karaganov es uno de los fundadores del Club Valdai, presidente honorario del Consejo de Política Exterior y de Defensa, y desde hace años ha sido la voz más radical del realismo ruso.

Con él, la conversación comenzó de inmediato con el punto más polémico. Europa, dijo, es la raíz de todos los males. Si fuera destruida, nadie la extrañaría. Un conflicto nuclear táctico en su territorio no involucraría a otros actores.

Los europeos han tenido tiempo de sobra para encontrar una solución a sus propios problemas; ahora que han optado por prepararse para la guerra contra Rusia, es demasiado tarde para ofrecerles otra oportunidad.

Debo ser honesto: nunca he sido admirador de Karaganov; a menudo he considerado que sus puntos de vista son demasiado radicales y anticuados.

Pero a partir de un café juntos después del almuerzo —y a lo largo de una semana de discusiones— descubrí que pensamos de manera muy similar y que sus puntos de vista no son en absoluto triviales.

Cualquiera que haya leído sus declaraciones recientes reconocerá esta línea de pensamiento.

En junio de 2023, Karaganov había argumentado públicamente que Rusia debería bajar el umbral para el uso de armas nucleares a fin de restaurar la credibilidad de su disuasión e inducir a Occidente a retirarse del conflicto en Ucrania.

Parte de ese enfoque se incorporó posteriormente a documentos oficiales: los Fundamentos de la política estatal de la Federación Rusa en el ámbito de la disuasión nuclear, actualizados en noviembre de 2024, tratan un ataque por parte de un Estado no nuclear, llevado a cabo con la participación o el apoyo de una potencia nuclear, como un ataque conjunto.

Sus palabras, sin embargo, contienen tres afirmaciones distintas, y vale la pena diferenciarlas.

La primera es un juicio histórico y civilizatorio: Europa como fuente de las grandes catástrofes de la modernidad, desde las guerras mundiales hasta el colonialismo. Se trata de una tesis que Karaganov ha defendido desde hace tiempo y que puede ser cuestionada, pero que pertenece al ámbito de la interpretación.

La segunda —que nadie lloraría la pérdida de Europa— es una predicción sobre las reacciones de los demás; por lo que observé durante esos días, encuentra eco en una parte significativa de los participantes asiáticos, africanos y latinoamericanos.

La tercera es una hipótesis estratégica que sustenta todo lo demás: una escalada nuclear en Europa se mantendría confinada a Europa.

Sobre este punto, la literatura sobre la disuasión lleva setenta años debatiendo y —afortunadamente— carece de evidencia empírica. El factor que complica esta hipótesis se encuentra dentro de la propia Europa.

Francia y el Reino Unido poseen arsenales nacionales, y en marzo de 2025, París abrió formalmente el debate sobre la dimensión europea de su propia disuasión.

Un conflicto nuclear «exclusivamente europeo» presupone que dos potencias nucleares europeas se quedarían de brazos cruzados. Esta es la suposición más débil de todo el argumento, independientemente de cómo se evalúen las otras dos.

También cabe señalar que Karaganov no habla en nombre del gobierno. En el Foro de Valdai, representa al ala del debate ruso que empuja al Kremlin hacia posiciones más definitivas, y una de sus funciones es precisamente ampliar los límites de lo que se puede decir. Visto así, su «demasiado tarde» es un indicio de una tendencia más que de una doctrina.

Oreshkin: El mercado que ya no existe

Con Maksim Oreshkin, el tono ha cambiado por completo. Subjefe de la Administración Presidencial, exministro de Desarrollo Económico y posteriormente asesor económico del presidente, Oreshkin razona en términos de flujos de efectivo y balances.

Su evaluación fue contundente: Europa está acabada. Ya no existe una competencia viable en el mercado energético, porque China e India ocupan ahora los primeros lugares entre los clientes de Rusia.

Y no hay razón para invertir en un rescate europeo, ya que los europeos, hasta la fecha, no han mostrado interés en encontrar una solución pacífica y razonable.

La pregunta que le había planteado durante la reunión con los participantes de Valdai fue: «Dado que el gasoducto Nord Stream 2 ya no está disponible —porque fue saboteado—, ¿pretende encontrar un nuevo sistema de transporte de energía, suponiendo que Europa se reconcilie y la situación diplomática mejore?». Su respuesta directa —y tal vez brutal— es como una daga de verdad clavada en la conciencia de cada europeo.

«Se acabó» debe entenderse en un sentido técnico. Oreshkin no se refería directamente a la civilización europea, sino a Europa como socio comercial: un mercado que ha dejado de ser fundamental para Rusia y que, por lo tanto, no justifica concesiones políticas para recuperarlo.

A partir de 2022, el petróleo crudo ruso encontró a sus principales compradores en China y la India, mientras que Bruselas, mediante el acuerdo entre el Consejo y el Parlamento Europeo de diciembre de 2025, se comprometió a eliminar gradualmente las importaciones de gas ruso —incluido el gas por gasoducto y el GNL— para 2027. La interdependencia energética que había mantenido unidas a Europa y Rusia durante medio siglo —incluso en los peores momentos de la Guerra Fría— ha sido desmantelada por ambas partes.

El razonamiento de Oreshkin resume la consecuencia más simple de esto: quien ya no es el cliente principal, ya no tiene influencia. Estas son las leyes del mercado, y ni en Londres, ni en Berlín, ni en Bruselas quedan políticos o grupos de poder que puedan decirle a Rusia «qué hacer» .

La otra cara de la moneda también es bien conocida en Moscú. Un mercado dominado por dos grandes compradores les permite exigir descuentos, y sustituir a Europa por Asia tiene un costo en términos de precio y acceso a la tecnología.

Pero según la lógica que me presentaron, la pregunta ya no es si Europa le conviene a Rusia. Es cuánto costaría hacer que vuelva a ser beneficiosa, y la respuesta implícita es que los europeos deben asumir ese costo.

Lavrov: la puerta cerrada a «este» orden

Con Serguéi Lavrov, la discusión pasó de la economía a la diplomacia, sin cambiar la conclusión.

Europa, dijo, tuvo muchas oportunidades para restablecer un diálogo con Rusia y, en cambio, optó por avivar la confrontación directa. Ahora es demasiado tarde para dar marcha atrás: se han cruzado todos los límites y, con el orden europeo actual, no hay forma de volver a las relaciones anteriores.

Me gustaría que hiciéramos una pausa por un momento para reflexionar sobre el peso de estas palabras.

Quienes conocen a Lavrov saben que es un político capaz de sopesar cada palabra con gran inteligencia, incluso en entornos más relajados como la Cumbre de Valdai. «Se han sobrepasado los límites». Sería inútil enumerar estos límites, porque son tan obvios para todo el mundo que simplemente sería una pérdida de tiempo.

Pero la mirada en los ojos de Lavrov mientras hablaba de Europa… eso nunca lo olvidaré. Me he reunido con él muchas otras veces, pero en esta ocasión hubo algo diferente.

El ministro cuenta con un historial de acontecimientos a los que la diplomacia rusa hace referencia con regularidad: los acuerdos de Minsk, los borradores de tratados sobre garantías de seguridad presentados a Estados Unidos y a la OTAN el 17 de diciembre de 2021, y las negociaciones de Estambul en la primavera de 2022.

La interpretación rusa de cada uno de estos acontecimientos es controvertida y es cuestionada en Europa. Lo que me interesa aquí es otro elemento: una salvedad que, al releerla después de la sesión plenaria, resultó ser la clave de toda la semana.

Un regreso es imposible bajo este marco europeo. No con Europa, en su forma actual —es decir, la UE y la OTAN—. El rechazo se refiere a una clase dirigente y a una arquitectura institucional, no a los países que forman parte de ella.

Me pregunto: ¿hasta qué punto se ha abusado de la paciencia rusa para llegar al punto de decir tales cosas? La literatura clásica rusa nos ofrece ejemplos admirables de cómo los políticos rusos son capaces de dar largas, ignorar y ser pacientes.

Y no se puede negar que esta ha sido sistemáticamente la actitud de la clase dirigente rusa durante los últimos años de conflicto.

Llegar al punto de decir que se ha sobrepasado el límite —algo que Putin reiteraría más tarde en la sesión plenaria de la cumbre— significa que ya no hay más recursos que desperdiciar en una espera paciente; significa que el Oso ha sido despertado de su hibernación en el momento equivocado; significa que las consecuencias de estas acciones tendrán una importancia trascendental.

Lavrov agregó una cosa más:

Estamos listos para atacar a Europa de manera ejemplar, no como lo hicimos en Ucrania».

Tomen nota de estas palabras, queridos amigos europeos. Vuelvan a leerlas y reflexionen sobre su peso. No hace falta decir nada más.

Un profesor italiano le hace una pregunta a Putin

Llegamos ahora a uno de los momentos más peligrosos de mi carrera. La sesión plenaria se llevó a cabo, como es tradicional, con la presencia del presidente ruso y con Fyodor Lukyanov como moderador. Tomé la palabra y formulé una pregunta de dos partes:

Vengo de Italia, un país que actualmente no tiene buenas relaciones con Rusia. Como europeo, me gustaría preguntarle: ¿Qué condiciones establecerá Rusia para desarrollar un nuevo sistema de seguridad para los países europeos? Y, si imaginamos una Europa post-Unión Europea, ¿la considerará parte de una gran asociación euroasiática o, en su opinión, Estados Unidos y Rusia siempre estarán compitiendo por estos territorios?

Putin comenzó con la segunda parte, y el orden no es una coincidencia:

Italia se encuentra, de hecho, en Europa, y yo estoy hablando de una alianza euroasiática: por lo tanto, no hace falta decir que consideraremos —y ya consideramos— a Italia también como un socio euroasiático.

Inmediatamente después, aclaró que el destino de la Unión Europea, y la permanencia de Italia en ella, «no es asunto nuestro». Moscú ni siquiera tiene la intención de discutirlo, porque cualquier comentario al respecto se interpretaría como un intento de desintegrar a la UE, «mientras que nosotros no queremos desintegrar nada en absoluto. Solo queremos construir y cooperar».

Sobre las condiciones para un nuevo sistema de seguridad, la respuesta fue clara:

No tenemos condiciones previas». El obstáculo, en su opinión, está del otro lado. Algunos políticos europeos consideran inaceptable que un solo país entable un diálogo con Rusia, y Putin ha calificado esta exigencia como un dictado aún más severo que el de la era soviética. La comparación fue cuidadosamente elaborada: la URSS era un Estado unitario y altamente centralizado, cuyas repúblicas formaban parte de una única estructura estatal; la Unión Europea, en teoría, no lo es, pero en la práctica se comporta como si lo fuera. «Nadie nos lo prohíbe; estamos listos».

En ese momento, Lukyanov intervino con un comentario provocativo típico de un moderador experimentado: dado que Bruselas lo prohíbe, ¿no sería mejor contribuir un poco a la desintegración de la UE, para que sea más fácil tratar con los países individualmente? La respuesta llegó sin vacilar: «Pero no hay necesidad: se desmoronarán por sí solos».

Entonces Putin se dirigió directamente a mí. «Nuestro colega italiano sabe esto mejor que nosotros», dijo, y comenzó a dar las cifras: la deuda pública italiana en el 140 %, el déficit en torno al 3 %, y en otros países europeos cerca del 5 %. Las cifras estaban redondeadas, pero no muy lejos de la realidad.

Según Istat y Eurostat, a finales de 2024, la deuda pública de Italia se situaba en el 135,3 % del PIB y su endeudamiento neto en el 3,4 %. Sin embargo, el punto central de ese pasaje no eran los decimales.

Todos los problemas comienzan con la economía: el nivel de vida baja, el desempleo aumenta y los ciudadanos de las principales economías europeas lo sienten en carne propia; y esto, dijo,

también socava los cimientos mismos de la Unión Europea. Pero eso no es asunto nuestro; no nos entrometemos.

Concluyó reiterando la oferta de manera equilibrada: diálogo con la Unión en su conjunto, si así lo desea la Unión, o con países individuales, sin condiciones previas. «Pero tampoco debe haber condiciones previas por parte de Europa».

Tratar de comprender la magnitud de estas palabras, el equilibrio político que revelan y la fortaleza de un estadista que se preocupa no solo por el bien de su propio país, sino también por el de todo un continente, es una verdadera lección sobre lo que significa la política.

Escucha el discurso completo de Putin y comprenderás cómo, en menos de cinco minutos, es posible captar el declive de toda Europa, en todas sus facetas, al tiempo que se reitera con nostalgia que Rusia ha hecho todo lo que estaba a su alcance para ofrecer su ayuda.

Pero las decisiones de los europeos son suyas, sea cual sea la bandera que enarbolen. Rusia respeta y siempre respetará los principios fundamentales de su política exterior y su tradición política. Nada de mesianismo milagroso, nada de salvadores improvisados.

Europa —o más bien, los europeos de esta Europa—: ¿qué pretenden hacer?

Releyendo mis notas de viaje

Al releer mis notas a mi regreso, lo primero que llama la atención es la convergencia de puntos de vista.

El estratega, el economista, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y el presidente han expresado, cada uno con sus propias palabras, la misma evaluación: la Europa actual ha agotado su crédito ante Moscú. Lo segundo que llama la atención es que cada uno saca una conclusión diferente de ese diagnóstico.

Para Karaganov, la conclusión es coercitiva y toma un tono casi escatológico: Europa ha tenido su oportunidad, y lo que siga ya no es asunto de la diplomacia.

Para Oreshkin, es una cuestión de cálculo frío y duro: Europa no vale la inversión necesaria para recuperarla.

Para Lavrov, se trata de un retroceso diplomático limitado, centrado en la estructura política más que en la gente.

Por último, para Putin, la puerta sigue abierta —pero hacia los estados individuales, no hacia Bruselas—, acompañada de la expectativa de que la erosión económica hará el resto.

La aparente contradicción entre la postura de «ya es demasiado tarde» de los tres primeros y la postura de «sin condiciones previas» del cuarto se resuelve precisamente en la caracterización de Lavrov.

El resultado es una línea coherente, que yo llamaría «bilateralización»: Moscú no tratará con la Unión como entidad política mientras su liderazgo actual permanezca en el poder; ofrece a los estados miembros individuales canales sin condiciones previas y deja que las dificultades internas de Europa hagan que esos canales resulten atractivos.

La referencia a Italia como socio euroasiático «ya hoy» debe entenderse dentro de este marco: no es una cortesía; es una indicación de qué interlocutor prefiere Moscú.

Ciertamente no puedo afirmar que los cuatro interlocutores excepcionales hubieran llegado a un acuerdo —eso no hace falta decirlo—, pero esta convergencia me pareció verdaderamente «profética».

Valdai siempre ha sido el escenario donde se muestra la amplitud del debate ruso ante una audiencia extranjera. Puedo afirmar que estas perspectivas son compatibles y se refuerzan mutuamente: la postura firme de Karaganov hace que la oferta de Putin parezca moderada; las cifras de Oreshkin dan credibilidad a la idea de que Moscú no necesita hacer concesiones; y la fórmula de Lavrov equilibra la firmeza con la apertura.

La crisis de la deuda soberana de 2010–2012 dio lugar al Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad y a la unión bancaria; la pandemia condujo a Next Generation EU y a la primera deuda común a gran escala. Dentro de la Unión, las crisis han generado al menos tanta centralización como fragmentación.

Por lo tanto, «se desmoronarán por sí solos» es una apuesta, no una observación —aunque la apuesta les cueste poco a quienes la hacen—: si la UE se mantiene unida, Moscú al menos ha ofrecido diálogo; si se derrumba, ya cuenta con canales bilaterales establecidos.

Los indicadores a los que hay que prestar atención durante los próximos doce a dieciocho meses son bastante claros.

El primero se refiere a las visitas bilaterales a Moscú de los jefes de gobierno de la UE, además de las visitas previas de Viktor Orbán en julio de 2024 y Robert Fico en mayo de 2025.

El segundo es si se mantiene la unanimidad durante las renovaciones semestrales de las sanciones, donde un solo veto basta para abrir una grieta.

El tercero se refiere a las exenciones nacionales del cronograma para la eliminación gradual del gas ruso.

El cuarto —y el más significativo para nosotros— es la posible apertura de un canal estructurado por parte de una capital importante, incluida Roma.

¿Qué concluyo de todo esto? Como italiano, la frase que me quedo no es la que habla de desintegración; es la otra: «Ya consideramos a Italia también un socio euroasiático».

Contiene tanto una oferta como una observación dirigida a nosotros. Si la puerta que Moscú dice que está abierta en realidad está cerrada, está cerrada por este lado —y no fue Roma quien la cerró por su propia cuenta.

¿Cuánto tiempo puede permitirse un país con una deuda que supera el 135 % del PIB dejar que otros decidan quién puede hablar con quién?

Nadie en Moscú me preguntó eso. Es una pregunta que me traje a casa por mi cuenta. Y todo italiano de buena conciencia, todo europeo que aún tenga corazón, conoce la respuesta.

Traducción:  Observatoriode trabajador@s en lucha