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 October 16, 2026, from Washington, US President Donald Trump intervened directly to defend the agreement, responding to a question from the Adnkronos news agency regarding 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 rather a pragmatic measure to inject fuel into markets and curb global prices.
The Trump-Putin Diesel Deal
At the root of the tension is the announcement made on October 9, 2026, when Trump revealed the agreement with Vladimir Putin for the supply of Russian diesel intended for both the US and international markets.
The plan involves 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 an additional three million tonnes, contingent 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 address to the Senate on October 14, 2026, Giorgia Meloni formalized Italy’s opposition to the agreement. While reiterating the need to protect families and businesses from energy price hikes, the premier described the White House’s approach as “risky”.
According to Palazzo Chigi, the recent surge in fuel prices is primarily linked to the crisis and war in Iran, rather than the conflict in Ukraine, casting doubt on the actual effectiveness of the energy agreement with Moscow.
The Italian premier highlighted three main strategic risks:
- Legitimizing Moscow: The risk of granting political legitimacy to the Kremlin while bombings of Ukrainian cities continue.
- Funding the War: The influx 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 genuine de-escalation, accusing the agreement of providing new resources to Moscow’s war machine. Zelensky also noted that he had not been informed in advance of the bilateral truce on attacks against energy infrastructure announced by Trump on October 11, emphasizing that Russian raids have continued unabated.
- The White House: Spokesperson Taylor Rogers defended the decision, calling it essential to protect American farmers, truckers, and families from energy inflation, and reiterated the administration’s refusal to limit US exports.
Market Constraints: Why Prices Won’t Drop Immediately
Reinforcing analysts’ doubts are data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) on structural refining constraints. An increase in crude oil or supply availability does not automatically translate into an immediate drop in diesel prices at the pump.
A refinery processes a standard barrel (42 gallons) into fixed proportions: approximately 19-20 gallons of gasoline, 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.
