Independent Journalism · Not Legal Advice · Verify Against the Court Record · Editorial Policy
Detailed view of a green industrial pipe and valve system in a mechanical setting.

Who Benefits From the Reported US-Russia Deals? Each Proposal, Each Party

by

If any of the business ideas Washington and Moscow have discussed as a path out of the Ukraine war went ahead, the gains would not fall evenly. In an article published October 27, 2026, the Financial Times described nine of them, naming a handful of companies and leaving other beneficiaries unnamed. This who benefits US Russia deals breakdown sets out, proposal by proposal, which parties the reporting points to and what each has said, without assuming any of the ideas will happen.

Where it stands: No proposal has become an agreement. The FT’s US source said the agreements “would be included in and subject to a comprehensive peace framework that stops the killing in this brutal war; nothing is finalised,” and the paper recorded repeated US statements that the ventures wait for the war’s end. Through October 28 the full list rested on the FT’s own sourcing, unmatched elsewhere.

Responses so far are thin. ExxonMobil gave the FT no immediate reply; the paper noted the company said last year it was in compensation talks with Russia but had no plans to resume operations there. Boeing declined to comment. On the Russian side, Peskov sent no answer and Dmitriev’s spokesperson chose not to comment. The background on the FT story is in our report on the proposals.

Who benefits US Russia deals list: each proposal and its reported gainers

The table names only parties identified in the reporting. Where the FT gave no name, none is supplied here.

Proposal Parties the reporting points to Response on record
Sakhalin-1 oil venture revived ExxonMobil; a Russian oil major Exxon: no plans to re-enter
Russian oil to Europe via Druzhba Unnamed US majors None reported
Russian airspace for US airlines US carriers; Russia via overflight fees No airline comment found
Titanium cooperation VSMPO-AVISMA; US buyers Boeing declined to comment
Lukoil foreign assets sold Lukoil; investors the FT does not name Treasury license covers talks only
Alaska LNG with Novatek Novatek None in the FT
Gas via Nord Stream Russian gas sellers White House: no recent talks (Oct 8)
Potash via Baltic ports Belarusian and Russian producers Lithuania backs EU sanctions
US entity runs Zaporizhzhia plant Unnamed US entity; Ukraine and Russia Russia says it will keep control, per NYT

What would Exxon and the oil majors gain?

On paper, a route back to a stake it already lost, though Exxon says it is not seeking one. The company held 30% of Sakhalin-1 and operated it until Russia took control in 2022. Exxon reported a $3.4 billion after-tax charge tied to the exit; Reuters has described it as a $4.6 billion impairment. Putin has given Exxon until January 1, 2027 to sell the seized stake.

Exxon’s public line points away from a return. “We don’t have any plans to re-enter Russia,” chief executive Darren Woods told the FT in 2025, describing the contacts as arbitration settlement talks. The FT described the revived venture as involving US and Russian oil majors, so a Russian partner would share in it as well.

The Druzhba idea names no company. The FT said only that the “American majors” could be involved in resuming Russian oil sales to Europe through the pipeline. More detail is in our Sakhalin-1 explainer.

Who are the “White House-connected investors” in the Lukoil sale?

The FT did not say. It wrote only that the two governments discussed selling Lukoil’s international assets to “White House-connected investors,” and this article does not name anyone the paper did not. The FT did not link the phrase to any US official, including envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

What is on record is the frame around any sale. Treasury designated Lukoil in October 2025. Analysts have valued the international portfolio at around $22 billion, according to Euractiv. Treasury’s current license lets parties negotiate until November 21, 2026, but any contract must wait for separate approval.

Separately, an earlier version of the Lukoil talks, reported by The New York Times on Oct. 3, included a stake for a federal lender, the US International Development Finance Corp. According to Ukrainska Pravda’s summary, the Times also wrote that there was “no evidence that Kushner or Witkoff stand to profit personally from the agreement.” A Witkoff spokesperson said he “takes no salary.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Congress in June that he had “never seen any evidence” Witkoff had acted for personal benefit, while Democrats have raised conflict-of-interest concerns about both envoys. See our Lukoil deal coverage for the full record.

What would Russia gain from the deals?

Normal relations sooner, by the FT’s account. Two people the paper spoke to said the Kremlin sees the ventures as a way to get Washington to restore ties while fighting continues.

Some ideas would also reopen revenue. Airspace access would bring back fees: The Points Guy noted that United’s past use of the route “requires payment of overflight fees to the Russian government.” The titanium idea centers on VSMPO-AVISMA, a quarter of which the state conglomerate Rostec owns. The FT tied Novatek, a Russian gas producer, to a proposed Alaska LNG project, and gas sales to Europe would revive a market Germany says it has replaced.

📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts

Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime

What about potash, airspace and the nuclear plant?

Each has a different set of winners. On potash, the idea as reported would help producers that depend on Baltic ports, notably Belarus, whose traditional export route ran through Lithuania’s Klaipeda. President Trump has argued US farmers would gain, saying Belarusian pricing would be “substantially less than we are currently paying to Canada.” Nutrien, the Canadian producer, had no immediate comment, and Lithuania says it will not discuss reopening transit while EU sanctions apply. Our potash explainer covers which sanctions are involved.

On airspace, the FT said access “would significantly reduce fuel costs” for US airlines. It would also narrow an advantage that the US airline trade group says Chinese carriers gain from flying over Russia.

On Zaporizhzhia, the FT idea gives a US entity management and splits the power between Ukraine and Russia. Kyiv’s earlier counter-proposal, as Zelensky described it, was a 50-50 US-Ukraine venture. Moscow has signaled it intends to keep the plant: “Russia has made it clear it will not relinquish control of the plant,” the Times reported in January.

Who stands to lose if the deals go ahead?

Ukraine, in its own telling, would lose leverage. “I do not want us to find ourselves without any leverage – lacking sanctions, funds, or frozen assets – when we sit down with Putin,” Zelensky said on Oct. 26.

European capitals see their sanctions policy at stake. Their diplomats have pushed back on any easing or business with Moscow while the war goes on, according to the FT. On Nord Stream, a spokeswoman for Germany’s energy ministry told Reuters this month that both the pipeline and Russian gas are covered by EU sanctions, adding that Berlin has lined up alternatives.

The arguments made for two ideas also point to possible commercial losers. Trump pitched Belarusian potash against Canadian supply on price, and US airlines’ long complaint about Chinese rivals rests on the Russian shortcut those rivals still use.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who are the White House-connected investors in the Lukoil idea?

The FT used that phrase without naming anyone, and it did not identify any US official as an investor. In separate reporting on an earlier Lukoil proposal, The New York Times said there was no evidence that envoys Witkoff or Kushner stood to profit personally. Any sale would still need separate Treasury approval.

Would ExxonMobil benefit from a Sakhalin-1 deal?

Exxon lost its 30% stake when Russia seized the project in 2022. Woods, its chief executive, has said the company is not planning a return and that its talks with Moscow concern compensation. It gave the FT no immediate comment.

What does Russia get from the proposed deals?

According to people the FT spoke to, Moscow sees the deals as incentives for Washington to normalise ties before the war ends. Several ideas, such as airspace access and potash exports, would also restore income streams that sanctions or closures cut off.

Who could lose if the deals go ahead?

Ukraine has warned against giving up leverage before talks with Putin. European governments say decisions affecting EU interests need their approval, and President Trump has pitched Belarusian potash as cheaper than what the US pays Canada.

Sources

This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.

Owed money from a settlement? Check what is open at OpenClassActions.com. Caring for someone with dementia? Find practical guides at HelpDementia.com. Working out a skin routine? Evidence-based answers at AcneAdvocate.com. Forgot the name of a movie? Identify it at FindThisMovie.com. Was your data exposed? Track active breaches at DataBreachRadar.com.
⚠️ OPINION & EDITORIAL CONTENT: All articles, commentary, and analysis on donaldtrumpclassaction.com represent the personal opinions of the authors and are presented for informational and editorial purposes only. This site is not affiliated with Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, or any government agency. Nothing here constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. Read full disclaimer.

We use essential cookies to make this site work and remember your preferences. We do not use advertising or analytics cookies. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy.