"Diesel diplomacy"... Trump's bet with Russia confuses Republicans

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

Two weeks before the US midterm elections, Republican Party candidates found themselves facing a new political dilemma, after President Donald Trump's steps towards Russia turned into an electoral burden that intersected with the high cost of living crisis and the decline of his popularity.

While the White House is betting that economic cooperation with Moscow may help end the Ukrainian war and reduce global fuel prices, Republicans running in close election races have begun to distance themselves from Trump's positions, fearing that they will pay the price for his decisions before voters, at a time when doubts are growing about his ability to fulfill his economic promises and end the war, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Trump's decision to allow the import of Russian diesel and suspend the implementation of a new sanctions package on Moscow has brought the dispute over US policy towards the war in Ukraine back to the forefront of the electoral race, after Republicans had supported, weeks ago, measures targeting countries and entities that buy Russian oil and gas.

The US move included suspending sanctions on diesel exports until early April, in an attempt to increase the global supply of fuel and contain high prices.

But the decision presented Republican candidates with a contradiction between supporting the president who leads their party, and defending a position they had previously adopted to punish Moscow for continuing the war.

In the state of Michigan, Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers announced his opposition to purchasing Russian diesel. He also criticized the suspension of sanctions, stressing that he would have voted in favor of the sanctions package approved by Congress, and doubting the agreement’s ability to reduce prices in the way the administration expects.

In Alaska, Republican Senator Dan Sullivan called for not buying Russian fuel, calling instead for expanding local energy production and strengthening US military capabilities.

As for the Republican candidate in Iowa, Ashley Henson, she said that lowering fuel prices does not require concluding an agreement with Russia.

These positions revealed the embarrassment facing some members of the Republican Party in states witnessing intense electoral competition. They do not want to lose Trump's electoral base, but at the same time they seek to avoid being associated with decisions that might increase voters' anger over the cost of living.

While US administration officials defended the economic rapprochement with Moscow as a negotiating tool that could push Russian President Vladimir Putin towards a settlement of the Ukrainian war.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright also made clear that easing restrictions represents an incentive to end the war, not an economic lifeline to save Russia.

On the other hand, Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the suspension of the implementation of sanctions, saying that the administration is studying the repercussions of their implementation in light of the pressures facing the American and global economies, in conjunction with the war with Iran and the tensions that threaten international shipping traffic.

However, the course of events does not yet provide guarantees of the success of this bet. An attempt to reach a mutual cessation of attacks on Russian and Ukrainian energy facilities faltered, and Kiev resumed its strikes on Russian oil refineries after Russian attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine continued.

In addition, the repercussions of the dispute went beyond calculations related to the relationship with Moscow, as fuel prices represented one of the main issues in the midterm elections, which politicians and analysts describe as the “ability to bear the costs of living” elections. The rise in diesel prices has increased the sensitivity of the issue, given its importance in land transport, agriculture, construction and industry, which means that its impact does not stop at the cost of refueling, but rather extends to the costs of transporting goods, production and services.

Trump had linked the increase in Russian energy supplies and American control of the Strait of Hormuz with his expectations of a rapid and significant decline in diesel prices.

But as prices continue to rise, he puts these promises to a direct test, and gives his opponents an opportunity to question the administration about the feasibility of its economic decisions.

This controversy over Russia coincided with a clear decline in indicators of satisfaction with Trump's performance. A Pew Research Center poll, published on October 8, showed that only 30% of Americans approved of his presidential performance, compared to 68% who opposed him, after his popularity recorded higher levels at the beginning of his second term.

What is noteworthy is that the decline was not limited to his opponents; The percentage of support among voters who voted for him in the 2024 elections decreased to 67%, compared to 95% at the beginning of his second term, according to the same poll. Confidence in his ability to make good economic decisions also declined to 35%, compared to 59% in November 2024.

Likewise, 65% of Americans said in a separate poll conducted by the AP-NORC Center in September that the rise in prices is linked to Trump’s policies, while 69% saw that his handling of the cost of living was worse than their expectations, including 52% of Republicans. The results indicate that economic pressures have become a political weakness for the president, even within a segment of his supporters.

These indicators put the Republican candidates in front of a difficult equation: defending Trump may help them maintain the support of his popular base, but it may exacerbate the alienation of independent voters, who represent an important bloc in close races. Staying away from him carries the risk of angering the president and his supporters, especially in a party where Trump still maintains broad influence.

In this context, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said that Congress clearly voted on the sanctions, stressing the need to deal with Putin with caution and consider the unintended consequences of the decision to suspend them, indicating that the issue may require further discussion between Congress and the White House.

Meanwhile, Princeton University professor Julian Zelizer believes that Trump's "diesel diplomacy" may backfire if it reinforces the impression that the administration does not have an effective plan to reduce fuel costs or end the fighting in Ukraine.

Thus, the challenge for Republicans is not limited to defending Trump's policy towards Russia, but rather extends to their ability to convince voters that the party can address their economic crises, at a time when the repercussions of foreign conflicts are intertwined with energy prices and the future of control of Congress.