US and Russia discuss postwar oil deals for American majors

The White House and the Kremlin are discussing the return of American oil majors to the Russian market as part of a broader effort to end the war in Ukraine, according to people familiar with the talks. The proposals, which would only take effect after a ceasefire, include reviving a joint venture between US and Russian companies off the coast of Sakhalin Island in the Russian Far East, as well as involving American firms in resuming Russian oil deliveries to Europe through the Druzhba pipeline. Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s special envoy, raised the idea of business deals with President Vladimir Putin during a meeting in St Petersburg in early September, and a subsequent visit to Moscow carried notes reading “Business Deals” in a visible notepad. A US official confirmed that economic proposals have been discussed with both sides of the conflict, but stressed that any agreement would be part of a comprehensive peace framework and that nothing has been finalised.

The talks mark a striking shift after years of Western isolation of Russia, and they reflect a transactional approach to ending a war now in its fifth year. US officials have framed the potential ventures as incentives for Putin to come to the negotiating table, while Moscow appears to view them as leverage to normalise ties with the Trump administration before the conflict ends. The mechanics are straightforward: a postwar Sakhalin-1 revival would give US companies access to oil and gas fields they were forced to abandon when Russia seized ExxonMobil’s 30 percent stake in the project. The Druzhba pipeline proposal would restore a major export route for Russian crude to Europe, a market that has largely turned away from Moscow since the invasion. Both ideas face long odds. ExxonMobil said last year it was only discussing compensation for the seizure and had no plans to resume operations. European buyers have committed to phasing out Russian energy, and US corporate appetite for rejoining a market known for political risk is thin.

The broader set of proposals extends well beyond oil. Washington has also floated restoring US airline access to Russian airspace, which would cut fuel costs on transcontinental routes, and resuming joint production of titanium, a critical material for civilian aircraft. Boeing once ran a Russian titanium joint venture but suspended it after the invasion and has since diversified its supply chains. These ideas carry symbolic weight as much as economic value. They signal that the US is willing to offer Russia tangible rewards for ending the war, and they suggest that the normalisation of business ties could come quickly once a ceasefire is reached. But the talks are notable for what they exclude: Ukrainian and European officials are not directly at the table for the economic discussions, even though Ukraine is the aggrieved party and Europe would be the customer for resumed oil flows.

The problem is that Putin has shown little willingness to compromise on his war aims, and any deal that rewards Russia with restored energy revenue and diplomatic legitimacy could undercut the very posture of deterrence that has held the Western coalition together. A partial reopening of Russian oil sales to Europe would strain the sanctions regime and test European unity. The proposals also raise a fundamental question about sequencing: if the economic incentives are offered before a durable peace is secured, Moscow may use them as a bargaining chip to extract concessions on security guarantees, territorial control, and reconstruction finance. For American oil majors, the calculus is equally fraught. The companies that were burned by the 2022 seizure have written off their Russian assets and would need credible legal protection and a functioning rule of law to justify a return. So far, the White House has offered no such assurances beyond the promise of a postwar framework.

The takeaway is that the US-Russia economic talks represent a bold but risky bet on a negotiated settlement. If they succeed, they could accelerate an end to the war and create new investment opportunities for American firms. If they fail, they risk legitimising an aggressor and fracturing the Western consensus at a critical moment. The details matter more than the headlines: whether any deal binds Moscow to concrete commitments on Ukraine’s sovereignty and whether US companies can secure enforceable protections for their investments. As it stands, the proposals are not a plan but a set of possibilities, and the distance between a notepad and a treaty is vast.