Johnson Slams US Sanctions Lift on Russian Fuel as 'Sickening'

On Saturday, October 10, 2026, Boris Johnson took to X with a sharp rebuke of American policy. The former British Prime Minister accused the United States of making a choice that would, in effect, have American drivers funding Russia's war in Ukraine. His language was blunt: the decision to ease sanctions on Russian fuel was "sickening" and "transparently ridiculous."

Johnson's anger centered on a deal announced the day before by President Donald Trump. On Friday, October 9, Trump had announced an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to supply diesel to the United States and global markets. The arrangement would begin with more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel shipped immediately, followed by 500,000 tonnes in November and an additional one million tonnes shortly after. The US Treasury Department formalized the move by issuing a temporary general license permitting Russian diesel sales on international markets despite existing sanctions—an authorization valid until April 7, 2027.

Trump framed the deal as a practical response to soaring fuel prices. The administration argued that additional Russian supplies would bring down diesel costs for American consumers, farmers, ranchers, and truckers. The timing reflected genuine market pressure: a global energy crisis had emerged from the US-Israeli conflict with Iran and disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway essential to international oil and gas flows. These supply constraints had driven diesel prices sharply upward across the United States and elsewhere.

Johnson rejected both the logic and the premise. He pointed out that the spike in fuel prices had begun with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, not with Ukraine's resistance to Russian invasion. More fundamentally, he argued that easing restrictions on Russian energy exports would provide Moscow with additional revenue while its military campaign continued. "Putin is murdering innocent Ukrainian civilians every day," Johnson wrote. "The Ukrainians are fighting for their lives. And yet the White House is apparently determined to force American drivers to bankroll Putin's slaughter."

He also questioned whether the move would deliver the economic relief its supporters promised. "It won't work and I doubt it will make much difference to the price of fuel," Johnson stated. Energy analysts shared this skepticism. The proposed volumes from Russia were relatively small compared with total US diesel consumption, they noted, and might offer only limited relief to the broader market. The Associated Press reported that the arrangement could benefit Russia financially without substantially easing the supply shortages driving prices higher.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also voiced opposition to the agreement. He warned that allowing Russia to earn revenue from petroleum exports could help Moscow sustain its military campaign rather than bring the war closer to an end. Johnson echoed this concern, arguing that if Western countries wanted Russian oil and gas to return to international markets without undermining Ukraine's sovereignty, the priority should be ending the war itself. "If we want Russian oil and gas back on the world market then let's end this war—with a free, sovereign and independent Ukraine," he wrote.

The decision marked a significant reversal of Washington's policy of restricting Russian energy imports following Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Western sanctions had targeted various sectors of the Russian economy, including energy, as governments sought to limit Moscow's revenue and pressure the Kremlin to end the war. The new arrangement suggested a recalibration of that approach, driven by immediate concerns about fuel costs and global supply. Yet the move exposed a fundamental tension: whether easing pressure on Russia's energy sector would meaningfully address the energy crisis or simply provide Moscow with additional resources to sustain its military operations.