Buying What You’d Bomb: The Legal Problem with the Russian Diesel Deal | Just Security

Michael Schmitt and Ryan Goodman of Just Security argue in “Fueling Russia’s War: The Russian Diesel Deal and International Law” that the U.S.-Russia diesel deal exposes the U.S. to legal responsibility, according to laws of war and even the DoW’s own doctrine. In plain terms: you can’t argue that oil infrastructure is “war-sustaining” and therefore a lawful target in your own wars– but then call on Ukraine to avoid them, while you go and buy Russian diesel. Per Schmitt and Goodman, that means you’re supporting a belligerent’s war machine. And that, on paper, is illegal. 

What happened

Last week, on October 9th, President Trump announced that he and Russian president Putin agreed on a deal in which Russia would supply 300,000 tons of diesel, with more to follow. The deal undercuts existing sanctions that were put in place after the 2022 invasion and comes just weeks after the passage of the Graham Act, which reflected bipartisan support for doubling down on sanctions on both Russia and Iran. 

Following the deal, Trump announced an energy ceasefire– which was broken by Russian strikes the same day–  and demanded that Ukraine stop hitting Russian refineries. 

Why you should read

Schmitt and Goodman’s article walks us through the legal implications of this move. It would seem that in this deal, the U.S. is trying to have its legal cake and eat it too.

There is merit to their argument. But even if you don’t agree that the U.S. is knowingly aiding or assisting Russia’s unlawful use of force, in our view there is something else going on here. Something more directly counterproductive. A U.S.-driven relaxation of sanctions on Russia, which our own intelligence community reports is a provider of materiel and intelligence to Iran, risks enabling our own adversary to more effectively target and kill American service members in the Middle East.