Donald Trump said he had urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to stop attacks on Russian diesel and oil-refining infrastructure, arguing that the campaign was contributing to fuel shortages beyond the battlefield.

“Zelensky has only one thing to do: he needs to stop attacking diesel in Russia,” Trump told reporters during a visit to Ireland. He said the shortage was driven by the war in Ukraine rather than conflict in the Middle East.¹

Trump’s argument casts the refinery campaign primarily as an economic risk: reduced Russian fuel output, he says, is tightening supply and putting upward pressure on prices worldwide. In a further appeal for restraint, he said Ukraine had other options: “There are many other targets. Do not attack diesel. It is hurting the world.”²

Ukraine’s position, as reported by Revista Oeste, is markedly different. Kyiv considers Russian refineries legitimate military targets because the oil industry finances Russia’s war and supplies fuel to its armed forces.² From that perspective, damage to refining capacity is not incidental economic disruption but a means of limiting Russia’s ability to sustain military operations.

The two accounts overlap on one central fact: the strikes have affected fuel availability. Russian authorities have faced domestic supply problems, while attacks have reduced refining output. But they differ on how that consequence should shape policy. Trump argues the broader market cost warrants redirecting the attacks; Kyiv’s rationale treats the facilities’ role in the war as grounds for continuing them.

The dispute also unfolds amid wider pressures on energy supplies. Reduced oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz have added to global uncertainty, while Russia has intensified attacks on Ukraine’s own energy network. That wider escalation underscores why the refinery issue is both a military question and a contest over the economic fallout of the war.