Kremlin Woos Trump’s Circle With Business Deals – Le Monde

The Kremlin is reportedly offering economic cooperation to Donald Trump and people close to him before the war in Ukraine ends. The effort matters because business ties appear to be moving ahead without the ceasefire previously treated as necessary for improved US-Russian relations.

Kirill Dmitriev is promoting possible deals in energy, civilian aviation, rare earth metals, artificial intelligence, and technology. He has also highlighted Arctic projects and LNG projects. These proposals connect major commercial sectors with a broader effort to improve relations between Russia and the United States.

The reported shift could make economic cooperation part of negotiations over the war. Ukrainian officials became concerned when a US proposal also involved restoring Russian energy supplies to Europe through Ukraine. The article does not identify specific contracts, prices, or companies, so the offers remain described as potential projects.

Kirill Dmitriev is identified as the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. The article says he is leading Russia’s effort to promote potential economic deals to Donald Trump and people close to him. His involvement gives the campaign a named Russian financial and investment representative.

Dmitriev is promoting projects across energy, civilian aviation, rare earth metals, artificial intelligence, and technology. He later discussed Arctic projects, energy projects, and LNG projects at a Moscow forum. These examples show that the outreach is broad rather than limited to one industry.

The article does not provide a detailed explanation of why Dmitriev was selected. It does establish that he is the official leading the effort and that he is actively presenting possible projects. His role therefore appears central to Russia’s attempt to advance economic ties before a ceasefire, though the proposed deals are not described as finalized.

A ceasefire is an arrangement in which opposing sides stop military attacks. It can be temporary, limited to certain areas, or designed to create space for negotiations. It does not necessarily end the war or resolve the reasons the sides are fighting.

A permanent peace agreement goes further. It normally sets out lasting political, territorial, security, and legal arrangements accepted by the parties. A ceasefire can therefore exist without peace, while a peace agreement is meant to provide a durable settlement. The article uses a ceasefire as the condition previously linked to restoring US-Russian economic relations.

In this case, the reported change is that Russia is seeking business cooperation before agreeing to stop the fighting. That matters because economic normalization could begin while the conflict remains unresolved. The article does not describe any permanent peace agreement or say that one is close.

Steve Witkoff reportedly presented Ukrainian negotiators with a postwar regional prosperity plan during talks in Florida. The plan involved Ukraine, Europe, and Russia. Its energy component proposed fully restoring supplies of Russian oil and gas to Europe through Ukrainian territory.

The mechanism would use Ukraine as a transit route for Russian energy reaching European markets. This would reconnect three regions through trade and infrastructure after the war. Ukrainian delegates reportedly noticed similarities between this proposal and Kirill Dmitriev’s ideas for economic cooperation with Russia.

The proposal raised concerns in Kyiv, according to the report. The article does not explain every concern or say whether the plan was accepted. It does show that energy trade was being discussed alongside postwar prosperity and wider US-Russian business cooperation, even though Russia had not first agreed to a ceasefire.

The provided article gives no percentage for Europe’s prewar dependence on Russian energy. Using widely reported 2021 European Union estimates, Russia supplied roughly 40% of the EU’s natural gas and about 27% of its oil imports. These figures describe the EU, not every European country.

That dependence mattered because Russian energy was deeply connected to European industry, transport, heating, and electricity systems. Oil and gas also generated revenue for Russia. A supply relationship of that size meant that any cutoff, sanctions policy, or infrastructure disruption could affect both sides.

The article’s proposed restoration of Russian oil and gas through Ukraine therefore carries strategic weight. It would revive an important trade route and reconnect Russia with European buyers. It could also give Russia renewed economic influence, while offering Europe supplies, but the source does not assess prices, volumes, or whether such restoration would actually occur.

If Russian energy supplies and economic ties returned before a ceasefire, Russia could regain trade, investment, and energy revenue while the war continued. Ukraine could face pressure because its territory and infrastructure would support renewed Russian exports without a prior halt to fighting.

For Europe, restored oil and gas could improve access to energy and revive commercial links. The key mechanism is leverage: Russia could benefit from buyers and transit routes, while Europe and Ukraine could become more invested in maintaining those connections. The article specifically identifies transit through Ukrainian territory as part of the proposal.

The effects would depend on the terms, timing, and security arrangements. Early economic normalization might support future prosperity, but it could also weaken the pressure created by sanctions and reduce incentives for a ceasefire. The article reports Ukrainian concerns but does not predict whether the plan will be adopted.

Sanctions give governments leverage by restricting access to finance, technology, markets, or goods. They can raise the cost of military action and signal that normal economic relations depend on political behavior. The article presents a possible reversal, with economic cooperation advancing before a ceasefire.

Energy infrastructure creates another form of leverage. Pipelines, ports, storage facilities, and transit systems connect producers to buyers. Control over those links can support exports or disrupt them. The proposed plan’s use of Ukrainian territory for Russian oil and gas illustrates how transit infrastructure can affect several countries at once.

Trade routes also shape bargaining power. A country controlling a vital route can collect fees, deny access, or pressure partners. Buyers may gain supplies, while sellers gain revenue and influence. In the article, business deals, Russian energy, and Ukrainian transit are connected to wider negotiations, showing why economic arrangements can affect conflict diplomacy.