The Trump administration is weighing looser sanctions on shadow fleet tankers that have hauled oil from Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, a US official said on 14 October, Reuters reported. An industry research group expects the change to do little for freight rates.

With Reuters calling high fuel prices a risk for Trump before the 3 November midterms, Washington has already eased sanctions on Russian oil and diesel this year and is now looking at the ships blacklisted for hauling sanctioned cargoes. In March, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said a waiver on Russian oil at sea would bring Moscow no significant financial benefit, yet Russia’s seaborne oil income jumped by $890 million in the week to 15 March, Bloomberg data showed.

“Legal oil” on blacklisted ships

The talks center on letting “legal oil” sail on previously sanctioned vessels, the official said. Only crude or fuel free of US sanctions would qualify, not Russian or Iranian oil. Washington wants more crude and refined products moving out of the Gulf, the official added. Companies would need US Treasury approval to use the ships.

Research group Energy Aspects said US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, in a video to the World Petroleum Congress in Riyadh, tied the easing to record freight rates. Those rates hit records after the Iran and Ukraine wars drove up inflation and left US crude too costly for Asian refiners, Reuters said. Energy Aspects itself expects the easing to do little for freight rates, since most tankers sanctioned over Russian or Venezuelan links have kept trading for the past three months.

The Energy Department said any relief would do nothing to help Russia ship its oil or refined products. Treasury referred questions to the Energy Department. Yet Reuters noted that both departments could face pressure to let these vessels carry Russian diesel, given Trump’s push to get it onto world markets fast.

Britain is pushing the other way. UK finance minister John Healey urged counterparts at International Monetary Fund meetings in Bangkok on 15 October to keep tough sanctions on Russia, “especially a tighter ban on shipping services” that keep Putin’s shadow fleet operating.

Diesel license criticism and an unconfirmed ceasefire

On 9 October, the US Treasury issued a license clearing Russian-origin diesel trade until 7 April 2027. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters it was a weak decision unworthy of Ukraine’s partners. Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Chuck Schumer, and Elizabeth Warren called it a “total betrayal of Ukraine.” Republican Senator Thom Tillis said there is “a legitimate case for saying the president’s not following the law.”

Trump then pressed Kyiv to spare Russian refineries and declared an “energy ceasefire” on 11 October. A White House official told Axios it covers only oil refineries. Neither side confirmed a similar announcement Trump made in mid-September, AAP reported.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters on 13 October that contacts on the ceasefire were continuing and referred further questions to Trump, Russian newspaper Vedomosti reported. He claimed the diesel deal was “a very mutually beneficial item of Russian-American cooperation” that serves the interests of Russia, the US, and world energy markets, Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.

Former special forces officer Sergiy Kuznietsov facing charges including 'war crime,' attacking civilian infrastructure; Kyiv consistently denies it was behind Baltic Sea blast

The plan includes Ukraine’s reconstruction, security guarantees, an energy agreement, and a ceasefire along the current front line.

On Tuesday, Kremlin’s spokesman Dmitri Peskov said the agreement with the United States to supply diesel was unrelated to the new peace plan for Ukraine being prepared by White House envoys in collaboration with European countries.

RELATED:

Brussels Seeks to Keep Russia Isolated From International Sports

“I see no direct connection here. This is mutually beneficial Russian-American cooperation that serves the interests of the U.S., global energy markets and Russia,” he said.

Earlier, The Washington Post reported the existence of a new U.S. proposal aimed at securing a ceasefire in Ukraine. According to the outlet, during a meeting in Florida, envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner told Ukrainian negotiators that the diesel agreement could bring Russia back to the negotiating table.

The four-point peace plan, which was discussed by U.S. and Ukrainian officials as well as envoys from the United Kingdom, France and Germany, addresses not only measures to halt the fighting but also the postwar period.

The first point concerns Ukraine’s reconstruction, which would involve both the World Bank and investment firm BlackRock. They would establish a mechanism to rebuild territories affected by the war, assist the families of those killed in combat, and restore the national economy.

First, Kiev changes the language people speak. Then, apparently, comes the harder question:

What language do they think in?

Ukraine has spent years expanding the mandatory use of Ukrainian across public life – education, government, media, advertising and services.

And… pic.twitter.com/Pm6vohqFAZ

— Rina Lu🇷🇺 (@rinalu_) October 12, 2026

Security guarantees are covered in the second point. The U.S. and European countries would promise Kiev a military response in the event of another Russian attack, similar to Article 5 of NATO. Russia, in turn, would also negotiate similar security agreements with European countries.

In the third point, U.S. negotiators propose an energy agreement among Russia, Ukraine and Europe that could include an oil pipeline and a natural gas pipeline, with the transit country — Ukraine — also benefiting. The agreement would include the lifting of sanctions.

The fourth point calls for a ceasefire along the current front line, which would allow Russia to retain control over one-fifth of Ukrainian territory, but not the entirety of the four regions it annexed in 2022.

This is the most complex point, as Ukraine, like the European Union, refuses to recognize Russian sovereignty over its territory, while Russian President Vladimir Putin demands full control of the Donbas region.

To advance the negotiations, the White House is demanding that Ukraine completely halt its bombing of Russian refineries under a truce that U.S. President Donald Trump himself announced Sunday and that apparently caught both sides off guard.

“They reached an agreement because I said they reached an agreement,” Trump told reporters on Monday in response to repeated questions about the truce.

teleSUR/ JF

Source: EFE

Russia offers Ukraine a single day without strikes for its elections. Russian leader Vladimir Putin is ready to order a halt to strikes on Ukraine only on the day of a presidential election, if Kyiv decides to hold one, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov says, Russian state agency TASS reported.

The offer answers Ukraine’s call for a real pause: on 11 October, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated Ukraine could hold elections if Putin agreed to a full ceasefire of at least 60 days, ABC News reported. Against the backdrop of Russian strikes that killed more than 150 Ukrainian civilians in a single week, Moscow counters with a one-day truce confined to voting day.

“...If they really want to hold elections in Kyiv, the president of Russia, the supreme commander-in-chief, will be ready to give the order not to strike Ukraine on election day. Specifically on election day,” Peskov said.

His statements followed US President Donald Trump’s call on 10 October for Ukraine to choose a new president, saying a change of leadership could help reach peace with Russia, according to Suspilne.

Trump also criticized Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries amid his new agreements to supply a low volume of diesel into the US.

Moscow rejects the 60-day pause

Peskov has outright dismissed the longer truce. Ukraine needs 60 days not to hold elections but to heal its wounds and continue the war, he argues.

He has claimed Russia had been willing to resume peace talks after Russia’s own State Duma elections, but accused Ukraine of launching massive strikes on Moscow to disrupt that vote. Peskov has gone further, claiming Ukraine shelled polling stations and killed several members of district election commissions in the Russian-occupied regions it calls its own.

What Peskov left out

The accusations are Russia’s and remain unverified. Peskov offered no evidence for the claims about polling stations or election officials, which echo long-running Kremlin talking points.

He also made no mention of Russia’s own strikes on Ukrainian civilian targets over the same period, including attacks on energy sites and residential buildings.

A Russian jet-powered drone struck the National Academy of Sciences in central Kyiv during the working day. Hours earlier, the Kremlin said Ukraine was now “paying the price” for its attacks on Russia. The combination provides a stark indication of how Moscow is framing its continuing air campaign.

Russia did not simply launch another attack on Kyiv on Monday. A jet-powered drone hit a building of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in the centre of the capital while people were at work inside.

At least one person was confirmed killed at the site, while Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said 19 people were injured across the capital during the day’s attacks. Fire engulfed part of the Academy building as rescuers used ladders to reach people trapped inside. Elsewhere in Kyiv, a pharmaceutical company, petrol stations and a medical facility were hit. In Dnipro, three people were killed when a drone struck a business centre during working hours.

The physical destruction was accompanied by unusually explicit language from Moscow.

Asked on Monday how recent Ukrainian attacks on Russia had affected prospects for negotiations, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov replied: “Ukraine will have to pay a price for the actions that have taken place in recent months. This is what is happening now.”

The statement was not made by a television propagandist or military blogger. It came from Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, in response to a question about Moscow’s position on negotiations.

That places the latest attacks in a different context. Russia is not presenting its military campaign solely in terms of destroying Ukrainian military capability. The Kremlin is publicly describing what is happening as a price Ukraine must pay.

The timing is difficult to separate from the scenes in central Kyiv.

Russia’s Defence Ministry later said its forces had struck fuel and telecommunications infrastructure in Kyiv, several data centres, cargo vessels bound for Ukrainian ports and a ship-repair facility. It did not identify the National Academy of Sciences as a military target. Reuters said it could not independently verify the ministry’s claims.

Nor does the fact that the Academy was hit, by itself, establish whether Russian commanders specifically selected that building as the intended target. That requires evidence about targeting orders which is not presently available.

But the legal difference between military and civilian objects is straightforward.

International humanitarian law permits attacks on military objectives. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, an object must make an effective contribution to military action and its destruction must offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances at the time. Civilian objects may not be directly attacked.

A defence factory can plainly meet that test. Fuel infrastructure can become a military objective depending on how it is being used, although it does not automatically lose civilian protection merely because it contributes to the wider economy.

Ukraine has increasingly attacked Russian oil installations and defence production. EU Today reported last week on a large Ukrainian drone operation against Moscow that struck the Kapotnya oil refinery and a logistics complex, part of Kyiv’s campaign against infrastructure it says sustains Russia’s war effort.

A national scientific academy starts from a very different position. Unless a specific military use can be demonstrated, it is a civilian institution.

This is why Peskov’s choice of words deserves particular attention.

He did not say merely that Russia was attempting to destroy Ukrainian weapons, command centres or military production. He spoke of Ukraine having to “pay a price”. The statement was made while explaining the consequences of Ukrainian actions for Moscow’s approach to negotiations.

That is the language of coercion.

It also comes as Russia changes the technology used in its campaign against Ukrainian cities. Russian forces have increasingly deployed faster jet-powered drones against Kyiv and other urban centres. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said at the weekend that Ukraine was intercepting only slightly more than half of these weapons — substantially below the interception rate achieved against older propeller-driven drones.

EU Today has previously examined the pressure these faster Russian drones are placing on Ukraine’s air-defence network. Their speed reduces reaction times and makes attacks on major cities more difficult to stop.

The result is increasingly visible away from the front.

Earlier this month, another Russian attack on Kyiv damaged residential buildings, a school, medical facilities and commercial premises, killing three people. That September 8 barrage followed a brief pause associated with diplomatic activity.

Monday’s strike on the Academy adds another element. The institution is not simply another office block. The National Academy of Sciences is one of Ukraine’s central scientific institutions and has existed, in different forms, since 1918. A burning Academy building in the centre of Kyiv therefore inevitably carries significance beyond the physical damage itself, irrespective of whether symbolism formed part of the targeting decision.

International humanitarian law also prohibits acts or threats of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population. Establishing such a purpose in any individual attack requires evidence. The broader prohibition, however, is important when a government publicly couples continuing strikes with language about making the population of an adversary state “pay a price”.

This is also relevant to European governments assessing repeated Russian references to negotiations.

Moscow’s military campaign and its diplomatic language cannot be treated as entirely separate tracks when the Kremlin itself connects them. Peskov was asked about peace negotiations and answered by describing the price Ukraine was being made to pay.

The question raised by Monday’s events is therefore larger than why one drone hit one building in Kyiv.

It is what Russia expects continuing attacks on Ukrainian cities, businesses and civilian institutions to achieve politically.

If their function is partly to raise the cost of resistance until Ukraine accepts terms it would otherwise reject, then the air campaign is also an instrument of negotiation by coercion.

The burning Academy of Sciences provides an unusually stark image of what that policy looks like on the ground.