A Latvian member of the European Parliament has criticised a reported US decision to ease restrictions on Russian diesel, arguing that the move could weaken pressure on Moscow and undermine European support for Ukraine. Rihard Kols said the agreement sent a “very bad signal” and questioned the business motives behind it.
The comments come as more than 100 MEPs call on the European Union to maintain its backing for Ukraine and move towards a complete embargo on Russian oil and gas imports. The issue highlights continuing divisions over how Europe should balance energy security, sanctions policy and support for Kyiv.
What the Latvian MEP said about the Russian diesel deal
Speaking to Euronews’ Special Report, Kols described the reported deal involving US President Donald Trump and Russian diesel as being driven by “dubious” commercial considerations. He did not provide further details in the supplied report about the terms, timing or legal mechanism of the agreement.
Kols argued that lifting restrictions on Russian fuel could reduce the impact of economic pressure imposed after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In his view, such a move would also send a political message to European governments and companies that energy ties with Russia may be returning to normal.
His remarks represent a political assessment rather than an EU decision. The supplied information does not indicate that the European Commission, the Council of the European Union or the European Parliament has approved a new measure connected to the reported US arrangement.
MEPs urge the EU to keep pressure on Russia
Kols is among more than 100 members of the European Parliament who have signed a letter urging the EU to continue supporting Ukraine and impose a full embargo on Russian oil and gas imports into the bloc.
The letter reflects pressure from some lawmakers for a tougher European foreign policy. Its reported demands include:
- Maintaining political and practical support for Ukraine.
- Strengthening restrictions on Russian energy imports.
- Moving towards a complete embargo on Russian oil and gas.
- Keeping sanctions pressure on Moscow in response to the war.
A signed parliamentary letter is not the same as legislation or a binding decision. Any new EU sanctions or energy restrictions would require action through the appropriate EU institutional and legal processes, depending on the measure being proposed.
Why Russian energy remains a political issue in Europe
Russian energy imports remain one of the most sensitive subjects in European foreign policy. Governments must consider the security implications of funding Russia’s war effort while also managing energy supply, prices and the impact on households and industry.
The debate has several overlapping dimensions:
- Sanctions: Restrictions on Russian energy are intended to reduce revenue available to the Russian state.
- Energy security: Member states must ensure sufficient supplies and reliable infrastructure.
- Economic effects: Changes in fuel availability can affect transport, manufacturing and consumer prices.
- Foreign policy: Energy policy is closely linked to the EU’s support for Ukraine and its wider relationship with Russia.
Kols also criticised EU member states that continue to import Russian energy, saying they lack moral standing while calling for stronger measures against Moscow. That is a political argument and does not establish that every continuing import is unlawful or contrary to existing EU sanctions.
What does this mean for EU policy?
At this stage, the supplied report points to a political dispute rather than a confirmed change in EU law. The reported US decision does not automatically alter European sanctions, import restrictions or national energy policy.
For the EU to adopt additional measures, member states and the relevant institutions would need to agree on the legal and political details. The eventual effect would depend on the scope of any proposal, exemptions, implementation arrangements and the countries or products covered.
The European Parliament can debate sanctions and call for action, but a letter signed by MEPs does not itself impose an embargo. Decisions on restrictive measures are normally taken by EU member states in the Council of the European Union, following the applicable legal procedure.
Possible implications for Ireland
Ireland’s position would be shaped by any formally adopted EU measure rather than by the reported US agreement alone. A new EU-wide embargo could affect importers, fuel markets and businesses that rely on petroleum products, although the supplied material does not provide details on likely prices, exemptions or implementation dates.
For Irish consumers and companies, the key questions would be whether the EU adopts new restrictions, which products are covered and how quickly they would apply. No confirmed change to Irish energy rules is identified in the report.
What happens next?
The immediate next step is clarification of the reported US-Russian diesel arrangement, including its precise terms and legal status. Separately, the MEPs’ letter may add political pressure ahead of future EU discussions on sanctions and energy security.
Readers should distinguish between political criticism, parliamentary appeals and formally adopted EU sanctions. Any change to European energy restrictions would need to be announced through official EU channels and accompanied by clear information on its effective date and scope.
Conclusion
The dispute over the reported Russian diesel deal shows how closely energy, sanctions and Ukraine policy remain connected. The Latvian MEP’s criticism reflects one position within the European Parliament, while the call for a full embargo signals pressure for tougher EU action. However, no new EU embargo or legislation has been confirmed in the supplied report. The key issue to watch is whether member states translate that political pressure into a formal European Union decision.
