On October 10, 2026, following his announcement of an agreement concerning imports of diesel fuel from Russia, U.S. President Donald Trump also criticized Volodymyr Zelensky, saying that he would “suggest” appointing a new leader in Ukraine.[i] Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump stated: “You know what I suggest? I think they should find a new leader who can make a deal, because he could have made many deals, but for some reason, he never does.”[ii] Alongside the United Kingdom, the United States is known to have played an influential role in the war in Ukraine, particularly in determining military tactics and strategies. Therefore, the U.S. president’s statement that he would recommend a change in Ukraine’s leadership could represent more than just a message targeting Zelensky; it could also mark a significant turning point in the future course of the war.
It is worth recalling that Ukraine launched an offensive against Russia in the summer of 2023. Following implicit disagreements over military strategy between the Office of the President of Ukraine and the General Staff, Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi was dismissed by Zelensky in February 2024.[iii] It is widely discussed and understood in European public opinion that U.S. and British military advisers have played an influential role in Ukraine’s war against Russia and that these countries consequently hold considerable sway over Ukraine’s military and political strategies. Debates over Ukraine’s ability to acquire long-range missiles capable of striking Russian territory have also occupied the European public agenda for years. Having struggled to secure the necessary approval and support from both Germany and the United States on this issue, Ukraine has now, for the first time, managed to carry out an attack on Russian territory using missiles produced with its own capabilities.[iv]
Although Trump called on both sides to end this “senseless war” and announced that the two countries had agreed to halt attacks on each other’s energy infrastructure, the reality on the ground has failed to reflect this announcement. The continued attacks on energy facilities by both sides point to a crisis that the White House has long been unable to control or manage. Although Trump had pledged to end the Russia–Ukraine war and secure peace before taking office, he has failed to achieve this goal and has repeatedly implied that Zelensky and his team remain determined to prolong the war. In this respect, Trump appears to have developed a firm conviction that the Office of the President of Ukraine is taking an uncompromising stance on peace. Similarly, the White House and the Pentagon opposed the use of American weapons in Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory for an extended period, fearing the risk of NATO being drawn into the war.
By reaching an agreement with Russia on diesel fuel, the Trump administration has also indirectly expressed its dissatisfaction with Ukraine’s military strategies targeting Russian energy facilities. In fact, Trump’s concerns are closely linked to the stance of the Office of the President of Ukraine. The loss of control over military and tactical strategies, together with the growing distance from peace, has also meant that Trump’s promises have gone unfulfilled. To put this development in a broader context, the agreement announced by Trump to reintroduce Russian diesel into U.S. and global markets signals a new phase in the long-standing but fragile relationship between Washington and Kyiv. If Trump has begun openly suggesting that Zelensky and his team need to be replaced, the repercussions on the ground could be serious.
The central issue in this debate, which has accumulated and intensified over the years, concerns the conditions under which the war in Ukraine will end and who will have the authority to decide its outcome. The Russian diesel agreement announced by Trump has once again demonstrated that U.S. economic pressure on Russia is no longer being treated as an absolute strategic objective, but rather as a set of short-term, temporary economic and political instruments.
The temporary easing of U.S. sanctions also opens a window of economic and diplomatic opportunity for the Kremlin. As a result, the deterrent effect and appeal of Western sanctions are being eroded. The West’s fundamental strategy had been to increase the cost of the war by limiting Russia’s energy revenues. By easing this pressure in an effort to lower energy prices, the United States has sent a message that sanctions can be adjusted according to political circumstances. Furthermore, Russia’s renewed emergence as an indispensable energy actor—with the United States itself facilitating this process—also sends a significant message regarding the war strategies of Europe and Ukraine. Ukraine, meanwhile, is increasingly dissatisfied with the pressure it faces from the United States, particularly concerning restrictions on its military operations.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s opposition[v] to Trump’s Russian diesel agreement also clearly demonstrates the significance of this issue for Europe. Arguing that the agreement is unacceptable for Germany and Europe, Merz wants the United States to maintain pressure on Russia and continue supporting Ukraine. The Trump administration’s tendency to make decisions on Ukraine without full coordination with Europe is reinforcing the need for European countries to strengthen their own defense, intelligence, and financing capabilities. The ongoing, largely behind-the-scenes competition among European countries, the United Kingdom, and the United States over the management of military strategies in Ukraine is intensifying the pressure on the Office of the President of Ukraine. Trump’s latest warnings to Zelensky and his call for a new leader can, in essence, be interpreted as reflections of this largely unseen struggle among Western powers over the direction of the war in Ukraine.
Whoever decides whether Ukraine’s future lies in war or peace will also shape the architecture of the new European security order. However, the current geopolitical climate still does not allow Europe to act entirely independently of the United States. Military capabilities, intelligence infrastructure, and coordination within NATO continue to make transatlantic cooperation essential. Nevertheless, the new responsibilities and capabilities Ukraine has assumed in its war against Russia over the past two years clearly demonstrate that the distribution of power and responsibilities within the alliance is beginning to change. This shift is clearly reflected in Trump’s messages.
[i] “Trump says Ukraine should get a new leader as he spars with Zelensky over US-Russia diesel deal”, CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/10/09/politics/trump-putin-russian-diesel, (Date Accessed: 10.02.2024).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] “Zaluzhny Agrees To Be Ukraine’s Ambassador To UK — Lawmaker”, Tass, https://tass.com/world/1742091, (Date Accessed: 13.10.2026).
[iv] “Ukraine Launches First Locally Produced Ballistic Missile Inside Russian Territory”, United 24 Media, https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/ukraine-launches-first-locally-produced-ballistic-missile-inside-russian-territory-23370, (Date Accessed: 13.10.2026).
[v] “Merz: Trump Russia diesel deal ‘out of question’ for Europe”, DW, https://www.dw.com/en/germany-news-merz-says-trumps-russia-diesel-deal-out-of-question-for-europe/live-79636427, (Date Accessed: 13.10.2026).
