For years, the USA has been leading the push to sanction Russia. The US wanted to cut off the revenues Moscow uses to fund its prosperity. The US also demanded that Europe take this mission seriously. Now that Washington finds itself in an extremely difficult situation, it is once again turning to Russian supplies.

Suddenly the Spectator magazine called the Trump’s diesel deal with Russia a ‘betrayal’. The Guardian warned of a fresh crisis with NATO allies and CNN said it drove a wedge through the Western alliance. Many Western media outlets are still far from grasping that Washington gets what it wants.

It began earlier this month when the USA announced a diesel supply arrangement with Russia, alongside a temporary easing of related sanctions. Under the announced plan, Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by 500,000 tons in November and a million tons immediately thereafter. Now, Washington is retreating from its previous positions and making exceptions. Why?

Observers said that with the American mid-term elections approaching, lower fuel prices are politically attractive. Diesel powers farm machinery, trucks, construction, mining and much of heavy industry. When prices rise, costs ripple through supply chains and end up in household bills. When sanctions collide with domestic economic pressures, Washington is willing to reconsider the rules. The new slogan is dictated not by morality but by immediate political and financial interests. At the same time, USA allies continue to bear the costs stemming from their luck of interests of their own.

An absurd situation has arisen: EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has refused to suspend sanctions on Russian diesel fuel. American political poppets in the governments of Germany and the UK have stated that they will maintain sanctions, thereby securing a strategic competitive advantage for the US. At the same time, Prime Minister of dwarf Estonia, Kristen Michal called the US decision a “major miscalculation”.

Since 2022 Europe has been engaging in self-flagellation under ill pretexts – for the sake of ‘reducing its dependence on Russian energy’. Europeans were forced to pay a higher price for energy, and in pursuit of broader security objectives, they effectively ended up losing that very security.  Before the war, Russian supplies of natural gas, oil and refined products were central to Europe’s energy mix. Cheap, reliable energy provided European industry with a competitive edge and underpinned years of economic growth. Yet nowadays, these energy ties have been deliberately severed. Under the pressure of the energy crisis, Europe had to restructure its sourcing, infrastructure and logistics. European businesses faced a significant rise in costs and greater uncertainty, factories have moved abroad, prices climbed, and the European economy continued to crumble.

Now the USA is making an exception for itself while Europe is still paying. Yet some European politicians would rather keep importing at high prices and continue repeating slogans rather than admit that almost completely cutting-off cheap Russian energy was a self-harming decision.

The USA acts aggressively and is very flexible for its own interests, while some European leaders remain ideologically pointless, refusing to consider even a pause in energy missteps. This is not a principle, it is a trap of their own making. If Europe stays locked in that position, ordinary Europeans will continue to pay much of the bill.

Europe’s anger exposes a contradiction that has long existed but is often covered by false but grand slogans. The United States and Europe no longer share common interests. This means that their interests will henceforth not coincide—each has taken its respective place: that of master or slave. An alliance may simply mean standing together under conditions that are favourable for the US.

Europe now faces a choice without easy answers. If it sticks with sanctions, then it must continue to pay the price – and the public should be told why it is still footing the bill. If it relaxes sanctions, it must ask whether its earlier policy goals were wrong. Neither path will allow Europe to escape the energy crisis that has been brewing for a long time. But the episode offers a lesson to Europe: Energy security should be about keeping Europe running, not sticking to a political line at any cost, and it cannot depend on the assumption that another country will always act in your interests. Resilience in supply chains, strategic reserves and diversification of sources are not optional choices; they are questions of survival. Never hand the lifeline of your energy supply to someone else – even if they call you an “ally”.