Translated automatically by AI from the Italian original.
WASHINGTON / ROME – The announcement of the diesel agreement signed between Washington and Moscow has opened a deep diplomatic rift between the United States and its main European partners, with Italy at the forefront in expressing strong opposition.
On 16 October 2026, from Washington, US president Donald Trump intervened directly to defend the deal, answering a question from the Adnkronos news agency about the concerns raised by Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni. Trump downplayed the political significance of the agreement without denying it, describing it not as an “exceptional” result but as a pragmatic measure to supply fuel to markets and curb global prices.
The Trump-Putin diesel deal
At the root of the tension is the announcement on 9 October 2026, when Trump revealed the agreement with Vladimir Putin for the supply of Russian diesel intended for both the US market and the international one.
The plan provides for the gradual shipment of large quantities of fuel:
- First phase: immediate shipment of over 300,000 tonnes of diesel.
- Second phase: 500,000 tonnes expected by November.
- Subsequent phases: one million tonnes at a later stage, with a potential increase of up to a further three million tonnes, conditional on the operational capacity of Russian refineries.
However, at present these volumes remain only declared and have not yet been documented at the destination ports.
Giorgia Meloni and Italy’s strong opposition
In her speech to the Senate on 14 October 2026, Giorgia Meloni formalised Italy’s opposition to the agreement. While reiterating the need to protect families and businesses from energy price hikes, the prime minister described the line taken by the White House as “risky”.
According to Palazzo Chigi, the recent surge in fuel prices is mainly linked to the crisis and war in Iran, rather than the conflict in Ukraine, casting doubt on the real effectiveness of the energy agreement with Moscow.
Meloni highlighted three main strategic risks:
- Legitimising Moscow: the risk of granting political legitimacy to the Kremlin while the bombing of Ukrainian cities continues.
- Funding the war: the inflow of new financial resources into Russian coffers to sustain the war effort.
- Strategic imbalance: a poor balance between limited short-term economic benefits and high long-term geopolitical costs.
Kyiv and the White House respond
- Volodymyr Zelensky: The Ukrainian president firmly rejected any easing of sanctions without a real de-escalation, accusing the agreement of providing new resources to Moscow’s war machine. Zelensky also pointed out that he had not been informed in advance of the bilateral truce on attacks against energy infrastructure announced by Trump on 11 October, stressing that Russian raids have continued without pause.
- The White House: Spokesperson Taylor Rogers defended the decision, calling it essential to protect American farmers, hauliers and families from energy inflation, and reiterated the administration’s refusal to limit US exports.
Market constraints: why prices will not fall immediately
Analysts’ doubts are reinforced by data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) on structural refining constraints. An increase in crude oil availability or supplies does not automatically translate into an immediate drop in the price of diesel at the pump.
A refinery processes a standard barrel (42 gallons) in fixed proportions: about 19–20 gallons of petrol, 11–13 gallons of distillates (mostly diesel) and 3–5 gallons of aviation fuel. Final consumer prices therefore continue to be heavily affected by refining margins, distribution costs and tax pressure.
