In recent days, the United States has been discussed in all three countries less as an ideological superpower than as an actor increasingly subordinating its foreign policy to immediate domestic and economic calculations. The catalyst was Donald Trump’s agreement with Vladimir Putin on supplying Russian diesel fuel to the global market, followed by the suspension of new restrictive measures against Russia. In Turkey, this shift is seen as evidence of a widening rift between the United States, its European allies and NATO; in Russia, as a practical but still reversible opportunity for partial normalization; and in Saudi and broader Arab discussions, as a sign that Washington is trying to patch up an energy crisis caused by the war in the Middle East without addressing its roots. (turkpress.co)
For Russia’s public debate, the “diesel deal” matters not only because of the volume of supplies. It is perceived as a political precedent: the United States is temporarily easing the sanctions regime against a country with which it continues to clash over Ukraine. In a Vedomosti analysis, Maxim Cherkashin, a researcher at the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, links Trump’s decision to the need to stabilize energy prices ahead of the U.S. midterm elections on November 3. Lawyer Yulia Eliseeva, in turn, stresses that this is not the elimination of sanctions but an exceptions mechanism that the White House can cancel at any time. The Russian tone is therefore cautiously positive: the market responded with growth, but commentators do not consider this the beginning of a lasting “détente.” (vedomosti.ru)
Russian official and business voices are trying to turn the episode into a broader argument: supposedly, it is Russia—not Europe—that is offering the world a pragmatic solution to the fuel shortage. Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said the deal primarily benefits consumers, while European criticism runs counter to Europeans’ own interests. He linked the diesel shortage to reduced supplies from the Persian Gulf and Russia’s export restrictions aimed at safeguarding the domestic market. Yet even in the Russian business press, optimism is limited: Kommersant notes that investors are waiting not for declarations but for signed contracts, actual shipments and the absence of a new escalation. According to Novak, the first deliveries may take place only 15–20 days after commercial agreements are concluded. (vedomosti.ru)
In Turkey, the same story is being interpreted much more broadly than as a dispute over diesel. Gürsel Tokmakoğlu, former head of the Turkish Air Force Intelligence Department, sees it, as summarized in his column for Independent Türkçe, as one link in a single chain: the energy agreement with Moscow, pressure on Kyiv, restrictions on Ukraine’s access to U.S. intelligence and the growing distance between Washington, Europe and NATO. The Turkish conclusion is that Trump is changing not merely the set of sanctions but the very principle of alliance policy: the interests of the U.S. domestic market may outweigh previous commitments to partners. For Ankara, long accustomed to cooperating and competing simultaneously with the United States, Russia and Europe, this is not a reason to choose one camp but an incentive to strengthen its own freedom of maneuver. (turkpress.co)
Turkish analysts also link America’s inconsistency to a broader energy strategy. In an Anadolu Ajansı article, Kenan Aslanlı, a lecturer at Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, describes U.S. policy as a shift from ensuring its own energy security to “energy dominance” [that is, using exports and access to resources as an instrument of geopolitical influence]. Against this backdrop, imports of Russian diesel appear not as an ideological turn in Moscow’s favor but as an acknowledgment that the conflict surrounding Iran, shipping problems and damage to regional infrastructure have created a shortage that Washington cannot quickly make up for on its own. (h.aa.com.tr)
The Saudi and Arab reaction is even more skeptical about the United States’ ability to solve the problem through a limited deal with Russia. An economic analysis by Al-Araby Al-Jadeed emphasizes that Russian volumes may prove useful for Moscow but cannot eliminate the main source of price pressure: the shipping crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and the reduction in regional refining capacity. This logic is particularly relevant to Riyadh: for Saudi Arabia, the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran is no longer external geopolitics but a direct threat to infrastructure, export routes and the kingdom’s reputation as a reliable energy hub. (alaraby.co.uk)
This is where the most unusual common feature of the three perspectives emerges. Russia sees Washington as a potential buyer and negotiating partner; Turkey sees it as an increasingly unpredictable ally with which it is necessary to bargain on every issue; Saudi Arabia sees it as a military power capable of protecting its partners but simultaneously increasing the risks they face through its own strategy of pressuring Iran. In an Arab analysis of Trump’s dilemma, this point is expressed particularly clearly: the United States may help protect the kingdom, but its actions could also push Iran’s allies to expand attacks on Saudi infrastructure and shipping in the Red Sea. (italiatelegraph.com)
Thus, in the eyes of Ankara, Riyadh and Moscow, American policy increasingly looks less like a system of permanent commitments and more like a series of situational deals. But their assessments differ on the key point: Russia is trying to use this transformation as an opportunity to return to markets and diplomatic bargaining; Turkey sees it as confirmation of the need for strategic autonomy; and Saudi Arabia sees it as a warning that even close relations with Washington cannot substitute for its own regional security system. The most important result of the current debate is not the several shipments of diesel but the accelerated erosion of the belief that American power automatically means American predictability.
