by Deepak Sawant 
The war in Ukraine Conflict is often framed as a purely political conflict, but behind the scenes, a different battle is being fought — the manipulation of global oil markets. Powerful U.S. energy interests, especially those linked to former President Donald Trump’s political allies, stand to benefit immensely. One key figure is Harold Hamm, founder of Continental Resources and a pioneer of the shale oil industry, who has been a major donor to Trump’s campaigns .
The shale oil sector relies on high oil prices to remain profitable. According to industry experts, shale producers see strong profits only when oil prices stay above $60 per barrel . Prices between $40 and $60 are considered a tight breakeven point , while anything below $40 triggers significant losses and production cuts. Trump’s energy policies, which include deregulation and export restrictions designed to influence global supply, directly support this business model — creating conditions where shale oil thrives and producers can expand aggressively.
How Ukraine Drone Strikes Disrupt Russian Oil
The war in Ukraine has directly affected the global oil market. Ukrainian drone attacks have recently damaged 10 Russian refineries, temporarily knocking out about 17% of Russia’s refining capacity . This disruption tightened global supply and pushed Brent crude oil prices back up to the $68–70 range, their highest in months.
Trump’s return to the global stage has amplified these tensions. In August 2025, his administration tripled tariffs on imports from India to 50%, citing India’s continued purchases of cheap Russian crude . According to The Guardian, Trump claimed these tariffs were necessary to punish countries indirectly funding Russia’s war through oil purchases .
This dual pressure — physical supply disruption from the Ukraine conflict and financial penalties from U.S. sanctions — fuels upward price momentum. While this benefits U.S. shale oil producers, it raises fuel costs for consumers worldwide and deepens geopolitical divides.
U.S. Weapons Sales: Profiting From the War
Beyond energy, the conflict has also been a financial windfall for the U.S. defense industry. Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. adopted a strategy of selling weapons to European allies at a 10% markup, rather than providing free aid .
European countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have collectively funded billions in military aid to Ukraine, paying directly for U.S. equipment . NATO has coordinated these transfers, allowing the U.S. to profit while avoiding direct taxpayer burden.
This approach benefits the U.S. in several ways:
- No extra cost to U.S. taxpayers, since allies cover the entire bill.
- Direct profits for U.S. defense contractors, thanks to the 10% markup.
- Increased geopolitical leverage over European partners reliant on U.S. arms.
- Political victories for Trump, who can tout his “America First” strategy as profitable and strategic.
In short, Europe pays for the war effort, while the U.S. defense industry grows richer and more powerful.
The Scale of U.S. Aid to Ukraine
According to data from the Kiel Institute and Al Jazeera, the U.S. has committed roughly €114.6 billion (~$134 billion) in total aid to Ukraine since 2022, including military, financial, and humanitarian support . Of that, approximately €64.6 billion (~$75 billion) is specifically military aid.
However, independent researchers argue that far less has actually been delivered. Adjusted for depreciation and incomplete transfers, the real-world value of weapons shipped to Ukraine is estimated at only $18.3 billion . Another report puts the total actual transferred military gear closer to $50 billion .
Breakdown of U.S. aid:
| Category | Promised (€ / $) | Actual Delivered ($) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Aid (Military + Other) | €114.6B / $134B | ~ $50B |
| Military Aid Only | €64.6B / $75B | $18.3B – $50B |
This discrepancy highlights a critical point: much of the so-called aid exists only on paper or in outdated equipment valued at original prices rather than current market worth .
The U.S.-Ukraine Mineral Deal
In May 2025, Washington and Kyiv signed a landmark resource-sharing agreement granting the U.S. a 50% stake in future Ukrainian oil, gas, and mineral projects .
A joint development fund was created to manage this partnership, with the goal of financing Ukraine’s reconstruction while ensuring long-term returns for both countries. In exchange, Ukraine received an initial package of $50 million in U.S. military aid tied directly to this resource deal .
While no revenue has been reported yet, this agreement positions the U.S. to benefit economically from Ukraine’s natural resources for decades — creating a strong incentive to maintain influence over Kyiv’s policies and stability.
Venezuela: Another Piece of the Oil Chessboard
While Russia remains a primary focus, Venezuela has emerged as another strategic player in the global oil market. Historically, Venezuela has held some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but years of sanctions and political turmoil have crippled its production.
Trump’s policies toward Venezuela have fluctuated, but they share a common theme: limiting Venezuelan crude from reaching global markets to keep supply tight and prices high.
- During his first term, Trump imposed strict sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, cutting off its access to U.S. financial systems and refineries.
- These sanctions blocked millions of barrels of low-cost Venezuelan oil from entering the market, helping support higher global prices — a direct benefit to U.S. shale producers.
- In 2025, with the Ukraine war ongoing, Trump signaled that sanctions on Venezuela would remain in place unless Caracas aligned with U.S. policies on Russia and China.
By keeping both Russian and Venezuelan oil constrained, Trump has effectively removed two major competitors from the market, ensuring U.S. shale oil remains dominant and profitable.
Russia, China, India, and Global Trade Tensions
The Ukraine war has reshaped global energy flows.
- The European Union has significantly reduced imports of Russian oil and gas, shifting to alternative suppliers.
- China and India have increased their purchases of discounted Russian energy, filling the gap left by Europe.
- Trump has targeted these countries with aggressive tariffs, threatening to penalize any nation seen as “funding Russia” by buying its oil .
In August 2025, Trump raised tariffs on nearly all Indian imports to 50%, citing India’s reliance on Russian crude . This marked a dramatic escalation in U.S. trade policy and further strained relations with one of the world’s largest emerging economies.
U.S. Shale Oil: Costs and Politics
The shale oil industry relies on hydraulic fracturing (fracking), a process that requires drilling deep into shale rock formations and injecting water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure to release trapped oil. This method is expensive and highly sensitive to oil prices.
Profitability by oil price level:
| Price per Barrel | Shale Oil Industry Status |
|---|---|
| $60+ | Strong profits, expansion phase |
| $40 – $60 | Breakeven to slim margins |
| Below $40 | Significant losses, production cuts |
| $20 – $30 | Severe losses, widespread bankruptcies |
| $8 | Total collapse of shale operations |
Major U.S. producers include Continental Resources (owned by Harold Hamm), EOG Resources, Pioneer Natural Resources, and Devon Energy. While Trump does not directly own shale companies, his largest campaign donors are heavily invested in this sector, meaning their financial interests align closely with his policies .
Policies that drive oil prices higher — such as tariffs, export restrictions, and sanctions on Russian crude — directly benefit these producers, ensuring continued political and financial support for Trump’s movement.
America’s Debt Crisis and the Cost of War
The U.S. is facing historic levels of debt, currently at about $36.4 trillion . This equals $106,000 per citizen and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 124%, a level typically seen in countries with severe fiscal stress .
Annual interest payments are soaring. In 2024, the U.S. paid $881 billion in interest alone, and this is projected to rise to $952 billion in 2025 . These payments now exceed defense spending, making debt management one of America’s most pressing economic challenges.
Entering a new war under these conditions would be extremely risky. Financing military operations would require massive borrowing, driving up interest rates, inflation, and deficits. Over time, this would weaken the dollar, reduce investor confidence, and place an even heavier burden on future generations.
Conclusion: Profits Over Peace
The Ukraine conflict is not just about geopolitics or defending democracy — it’s also a high-stakes financial game.
- Shale oil magnates gain when global oil prices surge due to war or sanctions.
- U.S. defense contractors profit from selling weapons at a markup to allies.
- Trump’s policies create conditions that benefit both groups while allowing him to claim political victories.
- American taxpayers, meanwhile, bear the indirect costs through higher fuel prices, trade wars, and mounting debt.
In this environment, there is little incentive for powerful players to seek peace. For those who profit from conflict, war is good business — and the rest of the world pays the price.
Sources: Reuters, The Guardian, TIME, Al Jazeera, Kiel Institute, CEPR, USAFacts, Kyiv Post, and official U.S. Treasury data.
