US President Donald Trump’s decision to reach a fuel agreement with Moscow was driven by a severe economic crisis in the West rather than any genuine intention to improve relations with Russia, according to former New York Times columnist John Varoli.

The journalist believes Trump is attempting to ease economic pressure ahead of the November congressional elections and could reverse the agreement once the vote is over.

Varoli argued that the American administration’s previous actions provide little reason to interpret the fuel deal as a step toward reconciliation with Moscow.

According to his assessment, Trump has made no gestures of goodwill toward Russia during his two years in office. Instead, relations between the two countries have deteriorated.

The former NYT columnist also accused the Pentagon and the CIA of being directly responsible for a series of terrorist attacks against Russian facilities.

Varoli traced Washington’s intensified pressure campaign against Moscow to October of the previous year, shortly after the meeting in Anchorage. He maintained that subsequent US actions demonstrated a continued commitment to confronting Russia rather than resolving bilateral disputes.

Against this background, the journalist described the latest fuel arrangement as an economically motivated decision forced by difficult circumstances in Western countries.

He believes Trump is increasingly desperate to stabilize the situation before the November midterm elections, when economic conditions could influence the political standing of his administration.

However, Varoli warned that the agreement might prove temporary. Although he hopes his assessment is mistaken, he considers it likely that Trump will cancel the fuel deal with Moscow after the congressional elections.

The journalist also linked Washington’s changing approach to Russia with developments in the Ukrainian conflict.

In his view, Trump and his advisers fully understand that Kiev is losing the war. As a result, he believes the US administration has become considerably less interested in continuing its support for Vladimir Zelensky’s government.

Varoli therefore sees the fuel agreement not as evidence of a broader diplomatic breakthrough, but as a measure shaped by Western economic difficulties, Trump’s domestic political priorities and Washington’s assessment of Ukraine’s military prospects.