Zelenskyy Criticizes US 30-Day Waiver on Russian Oil Sanctions

On the evening of March 12, 2026, as crude oil prices surged past $90 per barrel and the Strait of Hormuz remained choked by the fallout of the US-Israeli war on Iran, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent posted a brief message on X announcing what he called a "narrowly tailored, short-term measure" [1]. The United States would issue a 30-day waiver allowing countries worldwide to purchase approximately 124 million barrels of Russian oil currently stranded aboard tankers at sea.

Within hours, the decision had detonated a diplomatic crisis stretching from Kyiv to Berlin to Paris, fracturing the Western alliance at the very moment it was already strained by the widening Middle East conflict.

The Waiver: What It Actually Does

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published the authorization late on March 12, with the permit running through April 11, 2026 [2]. The license applies exclusively to Russian crude and petroleum products already loaded on vessels as of the date of issuance — no new Russian oil trade is authorized.

According to CNBC, approximately 124 million barrels of Russia-origin oil sat aboard tankers across some 30 locations globally, representing roughly five to six days of world supply [3]. This oil had been effectively stranded since the tightening of sanctions in late 2025 and early 2026, when the Trump administration imposed additional restrictions on Russia's two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, and the EU began banning fuel refined from Russian crude [4].

The waiver represents an expansion of an earlier, more limited measure. On March 6, Bessent had authorized Indian refiners specifically to purchase Russian oil to "ease a temporary gap" in global supply [5]. That initial India-only waiver drew immediate pushback from Congressional Democrats, who demanded its reversal [6]. One week later, the administration expanded the authorization to all countries worldwide [7].

Bessent's stated rationale was straightforward: "to increase the global reach of existing supply" and promote "stability in global energy markets" [1]. He stressed the waiver "will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government, which derives the majority of its energy revenue from taxes assessed at the point of extraction."

The Iran War's Energy Shock

The timing of the waiver is inseparable from the broader energy crisis triggered by the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran that began on February 28, 2026. The conflict and Iran's retaliatory actions — including threats to shut down all oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — have caused what analysts describe as the most significant disruption to global energy supplies in a generation [8].

Source: FRED / U.S. Energy Information Administration

Data as of Mar 9, 2026CSV

The data tells a stark story. WTI crude oil prices, which had been trading in the $60-66 range through most of February, began climbing on February 27 as the Iran conflict ignited. By March 2, prices had crossed $71. They hit $74 on March 3-4, surged to $80 on March 5, and rocketed to over $94 by March 9 [9]. Brent crude, the international benchmark, crossed $100 per barrel on March 12, with Iran's IRGC commander declaring that "not a litre of oil" would pass through the Strait of Hormuz [10].

The disruption to the Strait — through which roughly 20% of global oil flows — prompted the International Energy Agency (IEA) to coordinate the release of 400 million barrels from strategic petroleum reserves across member nations, the largest such release in history [8]. Yet even this extraordinary measure failed to fully stabilize prices.

It is against this backdrop of surging energy costs — and the specter of politically damaging gasoline prices at home — that the Trump administration turned to the controversial tool of easing Russian oil sanctions.

Zelenskyy's Fury

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's response was swift and unambiguous. Speaking at a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on March 13, Zelenskyy called the waiver "not the right decision" and warned of its direct military consequences [11].

"This easing alone by the United States could provide Russia with about $10 billion for the war," Zelenskyy said, arguing that any loosening of sanctions would "lead to a strengthening of Russia's position, as it spends the money from energy sales on weapons that are then used against Ukraine" [11].

The $10 billion figure, while disputed by the Treasury Department, reflects Zelenskyy's calculation of the potential revenue Russia could realize from the sale of the stranded 124 million barrels at current elevated market prices. With crude trading above $90-100 per barrel, the math is not implausible — though the actual revenue to the Russian state depends on the specific price at which the oil trades, transport costs, and the structure of Russian extraction taxes.

Zelenskyy's critique went beyond economics. He framed the decision as a signal of wavering Western commitment to Ukraine at a pivotal moment — more than four years into Russia's full-scale invasion, with the conflict grinding through its bloodiest winter in months [11].

A Transatlantic Rift

Zelenskyy was far from alone in his objections. The waiver exposed a sharp divide between the United States and its European allies — one that six of seven G7 nations made clear in unusually pointed language.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was among the most forceful critics. "Easing sanctions now, for whatever reason, is wrong," he said, suggesting Europe had been blindsided by the decision [12]. Merz noted that while the world faces "a price problem," there is "not a quantity problem" — a direct rebuke of the administration's supply-side justification.

European Council President Antonio Costa said the move "is very concerning, as it impacts European security" [13]. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who had already called on March 11 for maintaining the price cap on Russian oil, said plainly: "This is not the moment to relax sanctions on Russia" [13].

Macron, while hosting Zelenskyy, attempted a more diplomatic posture, characterizing the US waivers as "limited" and "taken on an exceptional basis" that do not "broadly or permanently roll back the sanctions" [14]. But he still endorsed the G7 consensus that the move sent the wrong signal.

The British government announced it would maintain its own sanctions on Russian oil regardless of the US decision [15]. The EU's import embargo on Russian crude, imposed in December 2022, remains in force, and European leaders signaled no intention of following Washington's lead.

Domestic Political Fallout

The waiver has also detonated a political battle on Capitol Hill. Senate Democratic leaders — including Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, and Sheldon Whitehouse — released a joint statement condemning the decision and raising legal concerns [16].

The Democrats argue the move violates the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which requires the administration to notify Congress 30 days before any action to ease Russia sanctions [16]. No such notification was provided, according to the senators.

"The Trump administration cannot simultaneously claim to be prioritizing U.S. military operations while offering sanctions relief to Putin," the legislators wrote. "The solution to a war started by President Trump must not be to reward the adversary helping Iran target American troops" [16].

The Senate Banking Committee's ranking Democrats demanded a congressional hearing with Treasury Secretary Bessent by the end of March and have called for a formal investigation into the decision-making process behind the waiver [17].

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright separately defended the waiver, blaming "fear" rather than actual supply shortfalls for the price spike and arguing the measure was a prudent short-term response to extraordinary market conditions [18].

Russia's War Economy: The Sanctions Were Working

The bitter irony of the waiver's timing is that it comes just as sanctions had been demonstrably squeezing Russia's war-financing capacity to its lowest point since the 2022 invasion.

According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, Russia earned $9.5 billion from exporting crude oil and petroleum products in February 2026 — a $1.5 billion drop from January — with total oil exports plunging to 6.6 million barrels per day, the lowest level since the full-scale invasion began [19]. Bloomberg reported on March 12, just hours before the waiver was announced, that Russia's oil-export revenue had sunk to the lowest level since the war in Ukraine [20].

The share of oil and gas revenues in the Russian federal budget has fallen from over 50% in 2022 to an estimated 23% in 2026 [21]. Russia's Economy Ministry was considering lowering its GDP growth forecast to just 0.7-1% for the year [22]. The combination of Western sanctions, the EU import embargo, the price cap mechanism, and the recent targeting of Rosneft and Lukoil had created the most severe financial pressure on Moscow's war machine to date.

This is precisely the context that makes Zelenskyy's criticism so pointed. The sanctions architecture built over four years of war was achieving its stated purpose — constraining Russian revenue at the point of maximum Ukrainian need — and the waiver risks undoing that progress at the moment it was bearing fruit.

The Strategic Calculus

The administration's dilemma is real, even if its critics find the chosen solution unacceptable. The Iran conflict has created an energy shock with no easy answers. With the Strait of Hormuz partially blocked, roughly 20% of global seaborne oil trade is disrupted [8]. The IEA's historic 400-million-barrel reserve release provides a buffer, but a prolonged conflict could exhaust strategic reserves.

In this context, the 124 million barrels of Russian oil sitting idle on tankers represents a politically inconvenient but physically available source of supply. The administration's calculation appears to be that short-term price stability — and by extension, economic stability and domestic political advantage — outweighs the reputational and strategic cost of temporarily easing sanctions on an adversary.

But critics argue this calculation fundamentally misreads the situation. Merz's point — that the crisis is about price, not quantity — suggests that releasing Russian oil won't necessarily lower prices if the underlying cause is geopolitical risk and Hormuz disruption rather than absolute physical shortage. The IEA reserve release and potential OPEC+ adjustments may address the supply concern without the political cost of benefiting Moscow.

Moreover, the "temporary" framing has drawn skepticism. The initial India-only waiver lasted barely a week before being expanded globally. If oil prices remain elevated through April 11 — as most analysts expect, given the unresolved Iran conflict — the administration will face enormous pressure to extend the waiver further.

What Comes Next

The waiver's April 11 expiration date sets up the next flashpoint. If the Iran conflict remains unresolved and Hormuz stays contested, the administration will have to decide whether to let the waiver lapse — accepting higher prices and potential economic damage — or extend it, deepening the rift with European allies and Ukraine while further eroding the sanctions regime.

Congressional Democrats have signaled they will pursue the CAATSA notification issue aggressively, potentially setting up a legal confrontation between the executive and legislative branches over sanctions authority [16].

For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. The war enters its fifth year with Russian forces still pressing offensives in the east. Every dollar of additional oil revenue that flows to Moscow can be calculated in ammunition, missiles, and drone components. Zelenskyy's $10 billion figure — whether precisely accurate or not — represents his attempt to make that moral arithmetic impossible to ignore.

The deeper question is whether this waiver represents a genuine one-off response to an extraordinary market disruption, or the beginning of a broader erosion of the sanctions architecture that has been the West's primary non-military tool for opposing Russia's invasion. The answer may determine not just the trajectory of the Ukraine war, but the credibility of Western sanctions as a tool of statecraft for years to come.

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air / Agroreview

Data as of Mar 1, 2026CSV

As one senior European diplomat told the Irish Times: the decision "unfortunately" hands Moscow a lifeline at the worst possible moment — not because the West wanted to, but because two wars have collided in a way that forces impossible choices [23].