President Donald Trump’s move to ease sanctions on Russian diesel exports, followed by criticism of Ukraine’s president and a surprise announcement of an energy-infrastructure ceasefire, has raised concern in Kyiv about Washington’s approach to the war. The Guardian characterized the diesel measure as a “deal with Putin,” but the reporting reviewed does not establish that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin reached a formal bilateral agreement.
The sequence unfolded over three days. NPR reported that Trump moved to ease sanctions on Russian diesel on Friday, 9 October. The following day, he called for Ukraine to get a new president. On Sunday, he announced an energy-infrastructure ceasefire, an announcement that caught Kyiv by surprise.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he learned of the ceasefire announcement through Trump’s social-media post, NPR reported. The sources reviewed do not show that Kyiv and Moscow had confirmed or accepted a specific ceasefire agreement. The distinction matters: Trump’s public announcement is documented, but its status as an agreed arrangement between the parties is not established by the available evidence.
A meeting in London
On 14 October, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham welcomed Zelenskyy to Downing Street. A British government statement said the two discussed Russian attacks on civilians and energy infrastructure since Trump called for an energy ceasefire, as well as UK military support for Ukraine. The statement confirms the meeting’s date, location and participants, but does not independently substantiate every characterization made in commentary about the talks.
The visit came amid reports of further Russian attacks. The Associated Press reported a second consecutive night of missile strikes. Zelenskyy said Ukraine had not received its usual advance warning from Western partners, though he did not identify which partners he meant.
That warning claim did not establish that the United States had stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine. Trump said the US had not ended intelligence-sharing, and a Ukrainian lawmaker told the AP that international intelligence-sharing had not stopped. The European Commission said it had no indication that US sharing had ceased, while NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Trump was clear that it continued, according to the Guardian’s live coverage.
Warnings over intelligence and strikes
NPR reported that Zelenskyy said US officials had warned they could cut intelligence-sharing unless Ukraine stopped long-range strikes on Russian oil refineries. The White House did not comment on whether such a warning had been made again, according to NPR. The report also recalled that the administration paused intelligence-sharing in 2025 amid tensions with Zelenskyy.
The earlier pause gives current concerns added political weight, but it does not prove that intelligence-sharing was suspended again in October 2026. Same-day accounts instead described a disputed and qualified picture: Zelenskyy reported a lack of advance warning from partners, while US and other officials said intelligence-sharing had not stopped.
Separately, the AP reported that SpaceX imposed a speed limit on Ukrainian Starlink terminals mounted on drones. The report, citing an adviser to Zelenskyy, said the restriction disrupted drone operations. It supports the existence of a technical limit and reported operational effects, but does not establish that the restriction was coordinated with US policy or intended as pressure on Kyiv.
What the record establishes
The events provide a basis for concern in Ukraine: a move affecting Russian diesel, Trump’s public call for a change of government in Kyiv, a ceasefire announcement Zelenskyy said he encountered on social media, and fresh attacks reported as the Ukrainian leader met the UK prime minister. They do not, on the evidence reviewed, demonstrate a formal Trump-Putin accord or a coordinated campaign to pressure Ukraine.
The Guardian’s phrase “deal with Putin” is therefore best understood as the editorial’s characterization of Trump’s actions, not as a verified description of a negotiated agreement. The status of the ceasefire announcement and the intelligence-sharing situation also require careful qualification: the available reports document the announcement and competing statements, but do not confirm that both sides accepted a specific truce or that Washington ended intelligence-sharing.