Elono Musko trumpas atsakymas „X“ tinkle vėl iškėlė klausimą, kiek toli Ukraina gali plėsti savo tolimojo nuotolio smūgius, kol Vašingtonas ir pagrindiniai privatūs partneriai nuspręs, kad kaina yra pernelyg didelė. Kuro rinkos, ...
Antraštės ir trumpo aprašymo vertimas atliktas automatiškai. Sudomino? Įsijunkite vertimą.
Elon Musk’s short reply on X has reopened the question of how far Ukraine can push its long-range strikes before Washington and key private partners treat the cost as too high. The fuel markets, the midterm calendar and the Starlink network all sit in the same frame.
On 10 October 2026 Elon Musk wrote five words under a White House video: “Zelensky has gone too far.” The video showed President Donald Trump telling reporters that Ukrainian strikes on Russian diesel refineries were creating a world problem and hurting American farmers and ranchers. Trump added that it was time for Ukraine to get a new president. Musk’s reply, posted within hours, carried weight because Ukraine still depends on Starlink terminals for much of its battlefield communications and drone work.
What Trump Actually Said and Why the Timing Matters
Trump spoke outside the White House on Saturday, 10 October. He said Washington had told Zelensky he could hit other targets but not the diesel fuel. “We told him, do whatever you want, but don’t hit the diesel fuel, because there’s a big problem, a big shortage. And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel,” Trump said. He continued that Zelensky “wants to make problems for the world… for our farmers, our ranchers, with diesel fuel.”
The remarks came one day after Trump announced a phone call with Vladimir Putin. On 9 October Trump wrote on Truth Social that Russia would supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel immediately, another 500,000 tons in November, one million tons after that, and potentially up to three million more depending on the state of Russian refineries. The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control issued General License 135 the same day. It authorizes the sale, delivery, offloading and importation of Russian-origin diesel, including into the United States, until 12:01 a.m. eastern time on 7 April 2027. Payments from U.S. accounts of Russia’s central bank, National Wealth Fund or finance ministry remain blocked.
An Axios report, citing a U.S. official with direct knowledge, said Trump moved after Zelensky ignored at least half a dozen requests to stop striking Russian refineries. The official told Axios: “Zelensky is misreading the room. By continuing to hit refineries, he is eroding the good will that he has built with Trump over the last six months.” During roughly eight hours of talks in Miami on 9 October, White House envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner informed the Ukrainian team that the diesel arrangement was coming. Ukrainian negotiators left a day early.
Related reading on the deal’s market and political angles appears in Planet Today’s earlier piece: Trump-Putin Diesel Deal: Message to Kyiv or Midterm Price Move?.
Zelensky’s Public Answer
Zelensky called the arrangement “not fair and not honest” and “a weak decision by strong partners.” In an Axios interview he described it as looking like “a happy birthday present for Putin.” He said Ukrainian negotiators in Miami had been used as a “smokescreen.” He argued the revenue would let Russia fight longer and that Russia answered the news with fresh strikes, including on Zaporizhzhia.
On the substance of the strikes themselves, Zelensky has offered a reciprocal halt. He told Trump and the envoys that Ukraine would stop hitting Russian refineries if Russia stopped hitting Ukrainian power plants, heating systems and water supplies. The U.S. side, according to the same official who spoke to Axios, did not treat the two as equivalent. Trump wanted the Ukrainian strikes to stop unilaterally because they were raising diesel prices for American consumers. Zelensky has repeatedly said an energy ceasefire must be mutual. “The real cause of the war in Europe is Russia and Russia alone,” he stated after Trump’s latest comments. He also noted that martial law prevents national elections, so a call for a new president has no immediate legal path inside Ukraine.
Planet Today has tracked the longer energy-truce talks here: Ukraine Energy Truce Talks Hide a Harder Winter War.
Why the Diesel Issue Reached Washington
Ukrainian drone and missile strikes have reduced Russian refining capacity. Estimates circulating in market reports put Russian refineries near 60 percent of normal output. Russia answered with an export ban on diesel, tightening global supply. That tightness sits on top of the wider fuel disruption caused by the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran, which has constrained flows through the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. national average diesel prices have hovered above $6 a gallon in recent weeks. American farmers, truckers and ranchers feel the cost directly. Trump has framed the Ukrainian strikes as an avoidable addition to that pressure and has asked for them to stop since at least mid-September.
Critics of the deal, including European governments and some U.S. analysts, argue the volumes are modest relative to global diesel demand and that any revenue still funds Russia’s war. They also note that EU and UK sanctions and the price cap remain in place, so the fuel cannot legally reach European buyers. The license does not reverse the 2022 congressional ban on Russian energy imports; it is an executive temporary authorization under existing sanctions regulations. Whether the physical fuel actually moves in the promised quantities depends on the remaining capacity of Russian refineries and on commercial buyers willing to take the political and logistical risk.
Musk’s Post and the Starlink Factor
Musk’s criticism lands differently because of Starlink. Since 2022 tens of thousands of Starlink terminals have become central to Ukrainian military communications, drone control and unit coordination. A sudden loss of access would create immediate operational problems. Musk has long argued for a negotiated settlement and has refused to extend the network for offensive strikes deep inside Russia. In 2022 he declined a Ukrainian request to activate coverage near Crimea for an attack on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, saying it would make SpaceX complicit in a major escalation. More recently Zelensky asked Trump to press Musk for authorization of Starlink-guided drone strikes against Russian missile launchers. Musk has not agreed. An associate of former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov told The Atlantic that Musk keeps repeating “it’s time to make a deal.”
In August Zelensky awarded Musk the Order of Freedom, one of Ukraine’s highest state honors, citing contributions to protecting lives and Ukrainian-American relations. The award has not changed Musk’s public stance on deep strikes. Ukraine has said it is developing its own low-orbit satellite system so that future operations do not depend on a single private company. Until that system is operational at scale, Starlink remains a practical constraint.
How Both Sides Frame the Same Facts
From the Washington and Musk side the sequence is straightforward. Multiple requests to spare diesel refineries were ignored. The resulting export ban and reduced Russian output added to a global shortage already worsened by the Iran conflict. High diesel prices hit American voters weeks before midterms. A temporary license and a Putin supply commitment are tools to ease that pressure while other talks continue. Continued Ukrainian strikes after those requests, they argue, treat U.S. consumer costs as secondary.
From the Ukrainian side the sequence is also straightforward. Russia began the full-scale invasion. Russian strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure have been systematic for years. Refineries are legitimate military targets because they supply fuel and revenue for the war. A mutual energy ceasefire has been on the table; a one-sided halt has not been accepted. The diesel deal, announced while Ukrainian negotiators were in Miami, looks like a concession that lengthens the war rather than shortens it. Elections under martial law are legally barred, so calls for a new president from outside do not change the immediate legal reality inside Ukraine.
Neither framing is secret. The Axios reporting, the OFAC license text, Trump’s public remarks, Zelensky’s interviews and Musk’s post are all on the record. The open question is which set of costs—global fuel prices and U.S. political pressure, or the military and political price of stopping strikes that degrade Russian logistics—will dominate the next round of decisions.
What Comes Next
Russian refinery capacity remains damaged. Any large-scale diesel deliveries will take time and will be limited by what the plants can still produce. Ukrainian forces continue to treat energy targets as valid. U.S. officials have indicated they want a new proposal that could bring Putin to the table, but Putin’s side has not committed to resuming formal talks. Musk has not threatened to cut Starlink; his post is a public signal, not an operational order. Ukraine’s own satellite effort is still early.
The practical result is a sharper gap between Washington’s immediate priority (diesel prices and midterm politics) and Kyiv’s priority (keeping pressure on Russian logistics while seeking a reciprocal energy halt). Readers can weigh the documented requests, the license language, the volume numbers, the Starlink dependence and the two public arguments for themselves.
Original source for the Musk post coverage: RT, 11 October 2026. Additional primary reporting: Axios, 10 October 2026; OFAC General License 135, 9 October 2026; Trump remarks, 10 October 2026; Zelensky statements via Axios and public channels, 9–11 October 2026.
Disclaimer: This article draws on public statements, official license text and contemporary reporting from multiple outlets. Readers should consult the original documents and primary sources for full context. Claims of motive or future outcomes remain interpretive.