Fred B. Thompson

FINALLY! The diesel deal that appeared designed to stop Ukraine from striking Russian oil refineries — potentially saving Putin's economy from paralysis or even collapse — is beginning to unravel. Members of Congress and the Ukrainian Armed Forces have dealt a serious blow to what looks increasingly like a dangerous convergence of interests between Trump and Putin. The Novokuybyshevsk refinery is burning, while a tanker carrying Russian diesel reportedly hesitates to enter New York's ports. When Ukraine suspended its attacks on Russian refineries, I kept remembering the words of French writer Jean de La Bruyère: "Some pretend to be fools deliberately, while others genuinely believe they are accomplishing something." I'll leave you to decide who belongs in which category. Let me repeat: in early October, Putin may have been just weeks away from a devastating economic crisis. But once again, Trump appeared to throw him a lifeline. The pressure on Russia's diesel production — one of the foundations of the Kremlin's economic and military strength — was significantly reduced. How did this happen? First, the controversial Russian diesel arrangement. Presented as an effort to stabilize fuel prices, it raised serious questions about whether Washington was effectively helping Moscow protect one of its most important industries. Second, pressure on Ukraine. Trump's policies and Musk's influence over Starlink have raised troubling questions about Ukraine's access to military communications, intelligence, and Patriot missiles. Third, diplomatic promises. Ceasefire negotiations and political incentives encouraged Ukraine to exercise restraint precisely when its attacks were inflicting serious damage on Russia's energy infrastructure. And what did Russia do in return? Absolutely nothing resembling restraint. Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities, power stations, and civilian infrastructure continued. The Kremlin gained breathing room while Ukraine paid the price. Eventually, Ukraine struck back. But how much time did we lose? In my assessment, approximately three months. At the beginning of October, I believed that another three weeks of sustained strikes involving roughly 100 long-range drones daily could have pushed Russia's refining sector toward a critical breaking point. Now, achieving comparable economic damage could take months. And these are not merely lost weeks. They mean additional time for Putin to repair infrastructure, rebuild supply chains, accumulate resources, and continue his invasion. For Ukraine, that means more destroyed homes, more dead civilians, and more families burying their loved ones. Americans and Europeans need to ask some uncomfortable questions. Who benefits when Ukraine is pressured to stop attacking Russian oil infrastructure? Who gains financially and politically? And who ultimately pays the price? There is another dangerous dimension: Iran. A major military escalation involving Iran could send global oil and diesel prices soaring while accelerating the depletion of American weapons stockpiles, especially Patriot interceptor missiles that Ukraine desperately needs. Russia could benefit from higher energy revenues while Europe faces greater economic pressure and Ukraine loses access to critical defensive weapons. Whether these developments reflect deliberate coordination or overlapping interests, they deserve serious investigation. We cannot afford silence. Journalists must investigate. Congress must demand answers. European governments must examine the consequences. And the public deserves to know whether policies presented as peace initiatives are actually giving Putin more time and resources to wage war. The distance between making concessions to an aggressor and effectively betraying those resisting aggression can be dangerously short. Cockroaches hate the light. Their dirty dealings depend on darkness and secrecy. Our responsibility is simple. Turn on the lights.