Trump: Putin Has 'Lost Control' of Oil as Zelenskyy Arrives for UN Talks
President Trump said Russia has 'lost control' of oil revenues because of the Ukraine war as Zelenskyy flew to New York, where Trump plans to push an energy truce proposal.
NEW YORK — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in New York on Monday as President Donald Trump declared that Vladimir Putin has “lost control” of Russian oil revenues because of the Ukraine war — remarks that set the stage for a high-stakes bilateral meeting at the United Nations General Assembly.
Trump made the assessment in comments reported by The Independent and CNBC, framing Ukraine’s sustained campaign against Russian energy infrastructure as having produced measurable damage to Moscow’s fiscal position. CNBC reported that Trump intends to press Zelenskyy to agree to an energy truce — a framework that would halt attacks on Russian oil and gas facilities — as part of broader ceasefire negotiations.
Russia and Ukraine continued to exchange deadly strikes in the hours before Zelenskyy’s departure for New York, according to AP News. The continued fighting underlined the distance between diplomatic overtures and conditions on the ground, even as both presidents prepared to meet face to face.
The Oil Argument
Trump’s framing of Russia as having “lost control” of oil is a notable rhetorical shift. It positions energy not primarily as a Russian weapon — the conventional European analysis — but as a liability that has turned against Moscow through Ukraine’s counter-strikes on refining and export infrastructure.
Ukraine has conducted an extended drone campaign targeting Russian oil refineries and fuel depots. Those attacks have disrupted output at multiple facilities and complicated Russia’s ability to monetize crude exports at scale, though Russia has continued to route oil to Asian buyers at discounted prices. The specific claim that Putin has “lost control” of oil revenues goes further than most Western assessments on the public record, and Trump offered it without detailed supporting data.
The energy truce concept has circulated in diplomatic circles for months. The case for it: both sides have incentives to protect energy infrastructure. Ukraine needs its power grid intact through another winter; Russia needs oil export revenue to fund the war. The case against it, from Kyiv’s perspective: attacking Russian energy is one of the few asymmetric tools Ukraine holds, and suspending those strikes without ironclad security guarantees would surrender leverage before a durable agreement is reached.
The Zelenskyy Calculation
Zelenskyy’s arrival in New York puts him across the table from a White House that has pressed Ukraine toward negotiations. The meeting carries different stakes than prior UNGA encounters. U.S. military support has been the subject of on-again, off-again political pressure, and Zelenskyy must navigate an administration that is simultaneously Ukraine’s most important external backer and its most unpredictable partner.
An energy truce, if accepted, would represent a significant concession by Kyiv. Ukrainian officials have consistently argued that degrading Russian energy revenue directly shortens the war by limiting Moscow’s capacity to sustain its forces. Accepting a freeze on those strikes in exchange for a diplomatic process that has not yet produced a ceasefire carries real strategic risk.
The earlier exchange of strikes reported by AP illustrates the tactical difficulty of any energy truce: ground commanders and drone units operate on timetables that diplomats in New York cannot easily pause, and violations — real or perceived — could unravel an agreement before it takes hold.
Market Implications
Trump’s assertion that Russia has “lost control” of oil carries potential weight for global energy markets. Russian crude has been trading at a discount relative to Brent — the so-called Urals spread — because of sanctions, insurance constraints, and elevated buyer risk premiums on Moscow-origin cargoes. If negotiations move toward a framework that includes an energy standstill, that discount could narrow as Russian supply becomes more predictably accessible.
An energy truce that held would likely place modest downward pressure on Brent over the medium term, particularly if it improved confidence in Black Sea shipping corridors. For markets still absorbing disruption across multiple theaters — including Houthi interference with Red Sea routes — any reduction in geopolitical risk premium along the European supply corridor would be directionally significant for crude pricing.
Conversely, a collapse of talks accompanied by an intensification of infrastructure strikes could push Brent higher, depending on how much additional Russian refining capacity is taken offline in subsequent weeks.
For now, the oil market will be watching two floors in New York — whatever the UN podium produces publicly, and whatever Trump and Zelenskyy say after they close the door.
Related coverage: Trump and Zelenskyy’s UN energy ceasefire talks | Russian strikes as Zelenskyy headed to New York | Trump’s Russia diesel gambit and Ukraine drone pressure | Hormuz crisis and the energy supply chain
Found this useful? Share it.
