Sanctions against Russia: Rubio defends 60-day break, Kiev denounces US setback

Washington presents the decision as a time of evaluation, rather than as an abandonment. On Saturday 17 October, Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that Donald Trump wanted to devote 60 days to the analysis of the economic consequences of the new sanctions against Russia which he had just suspended. BFMTV and BBC report this clarification, made after a decree published Friday night and immediately challenged by Kiev. [S1] [S15]

A derogation, not a general lifting of sanctions

The decree of 16 October concerns the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctions Russia and Iran Act of 2026, a law promulgated on 18 September according to the official text. It provides for sanctions against Russian officials, financial institutions and the "phantom fleet" used to circumvent restrictions on oil exports. The decision suspends further measures: it does not remove all US sanctions against Moscow. [S35] [S15]

The scheme includes a customs increase of 500 % on Russian goods and, subject to conditions, 100 % on those from the five main purchasers of Russian crude oil and gas. The Decree expressly makes these provisions subject to the derogations which it grants: these rates should therefore not be presented as effective levies. [S35]

Donald Trump uses a faculty under section 115 of the Act. It allows exemptions with written certification to Congress invoking the national interest, together with an explanatory report. The President stated that he had passed on this certification. The responsibility for arbitration lies with the executive, within a margin of manoeuvre left by parliamentarians. [S35]

60 days of examination, without automatic maturity

Marco Rubio justifies this break by the need to assess the effects of sanctions and tariffs on the US and world economies. He referred to tensions over oil and diesel prices, fuelled by several conflicts. This argument complements the original rationale for the Order, based on the "national interest of the United States". [S1] [S17]

However, the scope of the deadline remains to be distinguished from the political announcement. Reuters reports that the decree did not specify the duration of the exemption; Deutsche Welle states that it remains applicable until Donald Trump or senior officials deem a new action appropriate. Rubio's statements are therefore not sufficient to establish that the sanctions will automatically enter into force at the end of 60 days. [S36] [S17]

This suspension comes after a separate agreement with Moscow to put Russian diesel back on the US and global markets, with the stated aim of lowering fuel prices. For consumers, this is Washington's expected benefit. However, the available information does not allow an actual cost savings from the new derogation to be calculated. [S1] [S5]

Kiev warns about consequences for the inhabitants

Volodymyr Zelensky defends the opposite approach: maintain the financial pressure to reduce Moscow's means of war. He believes that the suspension encourages Vladimir Putin to continue the attacks. This political assessment alone does not demonstrate a causal link between the American decree and the strikes that have already occurred. [S15] [S23]

According to the President of Ukraine, quoted by the BBC, Russian attacks targeted 15 energy installations and caused cuts in several regions. He accuses Moscow of seeking to cause a general breakdown before winter. Behind the debate on sanctions is thus a concrete issue for the inhabitants: maintaining access to electricity and heating. The count of the affected facilities remains attributed to the Ukrainian authorities. [S15] [S3]

A contested decision to the Republican camp

Moscow welcomes the suspension. Kirill Dmitriev, advisor to the Kremlin on international economic cooperation, welcomes a "important and truly historic moment". He maintained that the sanctions would have harmed the American and global economies and that cooperation promoted lasting peace. These benefits are the Russian representative's argument, not a demonstrated result. [S13]

In the United States, the challenge goes beyond the Democratic opposition. Republican Senator Ted Cruz describes the derogation as "mistake" and affirms that there are other ways to meet fuel prices. Presidential arbitration therefore opposes two stated objectives: to limit the cost of energy to consumers and to maintain economic pressure to protect Ukraine. At this stage, neither a price drop due to this suspension nor a move towards peace are established in available sources. [S15] [S1]