Government representatives in Sweden, Denmark and Norway have criticised US President Donald Trump’s announced agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Russian diesel supplies. Their central concern is that additional revenue for Moscow could help finance its war against Ukraine, weakening allied efforts to increase economic pressure on Russia.
On 9 October, Trump announced that, following talks with Putin, Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 metric tonnes of diesel to US and global markets. The US president presented the agreement as a way to reduce fuel prices. The announcement came ahead of the US congressional midterm elections on 3 November.
Sweden: Energy Revenues Sustain Russia’s War Chest
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson expressed regret over the US agreement with Russia on 10 October. According to Swedish media outlet EFN, the prime minister emphasised in a post on X that energy revenues play a central role in financing Russia’s war.
Kristersson said Sweden’s position had remained unchanged since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine: support for Ukraine must continue for as long as necessary. He argued that pressure on Russia should increase, alongside stronger assistance for Ukraine. The prime minister pointed to further EU sanctions targeting Russia’s military industry as one means of achieving this.
Denmark: Sanctions Must Not Be Undermined
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen warned that additional Russian revenue generated by the agreement could ultimately finance the war in Ukraine.
Speaking to Danish public broadcaster DR, Rasmussen stressed that the EU had invested considerable effort in imposing tough sanctions and reducing dependence on Russian energy. Those efforts must not be undermined, news agency Ritzau reported.
Rasmussen reaffirmed Denmark’s commitment to maintaining economic pressure on Russia and supporting Ukraine together with its partners.
Norway: US Decision Moves in the Opposite Direction
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide described the agreement as a step in the opposite direction to the policy pursued by Norway and its allies.
Aftenposten reported on 10 October that Eide had emphasised the need to increase economic pressure on Moscow to weaken Russia’s ability to continue the war. In his assessment, the US decision to permit Russian diesel supplies does not advance that objective.
A common position runs through the three governments’ responses: efforts to lower fuel prices should not weaken pressure on Russia or undermine support for Ukraine. Sweden and Denmark explicitly reaffirmed their existing policies, while Norway highlighted the contradiction between the US decision and allied efforts to restrict financing for Russia’s war.
