Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has accused Donald Trump of spreading false information about the impact of Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries. But independent energy assessments reveal a more complicated picture, with disruptions in both Russia and the Middle East contributing to a global diesel shortage that reaches far beyond the battlefield.
INR Report: Based on reporting by RT International, 23 October 2026, with additional analysis drawing on the International Energy Agency, Reuters, S&P Global Energy and New Zealand government sources.
A Dispute That Goes Beyond Washington and Kiev
The increasingly public disagreement between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has exposed a fundamental conflict between military strategy, economic security and the international energy market.
At issue is Ukraine's continuing campaign against Russian oil refineries, which Kiev regards as legitimate targets in its efforts to weaken Moscow's ability to sustain the war.
Trump sees another consequence: disruption to the international supply of diesel at a time when fuel markets are already under exceptional pressure.
During an appearance on Steven Bartlett's The Diary of a CEO podcast, Zelensky rejected Trump's assertion that Ukrainian strikes were contributing to rising American fuel prices.
He described the president's claims as "totally false" and argued that Russia's diesel exports were too small to influence prices in the United States.
Zelensky instead identified the conflict involving Iran and disruption to the Strait of Hormuz as the principal cause of the energy crisis.
There is substantial evidence supporting the importance of the Middle East disruption.
But does that mean Ukrainian attacks on Russian refining capacity have no effect?
The International Energy Agency's latest assessments suggest otherwise.
What the International Energy Agency Actually Found
The most important evidence comes from the International Energy Agency's October 2026 Oil Market Report.
Published on 14 October, the report identifies simultaneous disruptions to fuel production and exports from the Middle East and Russia.
According to the IEA, global diesel exports in September were approximately 700,000 barrels per day below their level a year earlier.
A combined loss of approximately 1.3 million barrels per day from Russia and the Middle East was only partially offset by increased exports from other suppliers.
The agency identifies the prolonged disruption of Middle Eastern crude and refined-product flows as a major cause of the shortage.
It also specifically reports that Ukrainian drone attacks have damaged Russian refineries, reducing Russian gasoil production and exports.
This distinction matters.
Zelensky is correct to identify the Strait of Hormuz crisis as a major contributor to international fuel shortages.
However, his categorical claim that Russian diesel exports have no effect on American prices is difficult to reconcile with the IEA's assessment of interconnected global markets.
Diesel does not have to be shipped directly from Russia to an American fuel station to influence the price paid by American consumers.
When significant supplies disappear from international markets, competing buyers seek replacement cargoes elsewhere. That increases pressure on available refining capacity, shipping and wholesale prices.
The same mechanism can affect countries thousands of kilometres from the original disruption.
The Russian Refinery Campaign: Military Value and Economic Cost
Ukraine's attacks on Russian refineries have an identifiable military and economic purpose.
Refineries produce fuels required for military vehicles, transportation, logistics and domestic industry. Damaging them can complicate Russia's ability to sustain operations while imposing repair costs and reducing export revenue.
From Kiev's perspective, this makes the refining system an important strategic target.
But military effectiveness and wider economic consequences are separate questions.
The fact that an attack may weaken an adversary does not mean its effects stop at that adversary's borders.
According to S&P Global Energy, estimates in October indicated that roughly half of Russia's primary refining capacity was offline at the end of September.
The same analysis attributed a substantial reduction in Russian diesel exports to refinery damage.
These figures support the conclusion that the attacks have had a material effect on Russia's refining system.
They do not, by themselves, establish exactly how much of the global diesel price increase should be attributed to Ukraine.
That would require a more detailed comparison of supply losses, shipping costs, inventories, demand and alternative production.
The available evidence therefore supports two conclusions simultaneously: Ukraine has strategic reasons for targeting Russian refineries, and those attacks can contribute to international fuel shortages.
Trump's Diesel Agreement With Putin
On 9 October, Trump announced an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin intended to increase diesel supplies to American and international markets.
The announced quantities included more than 300,000 metric tonnes initially, another 500,000 tonnes during November and one million tonnes thereafter.
Additional supplies were also discussed.
The agreement represented a significant change in Washington's approach to Russian energy exports, with the administration temporarily easing certain sanctions restrictions.
According to Reuters reporting on 21 October, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said a first shipment of approximately 40,000 metric tonnes was being prepared.
The political significance of the arrangement is considerable.
For years, Western governments sought to restrict Russia's energy revenues as part of their response to the invasion of Ukraine.
Trump's agreement instead seeks to bring Russian diesel back into the market to ease fuel shortages.
That creates an unavoidable policy trade-off.
Additional Russian exports may help buyers obtain fuel, but the transactions can also generate revenue for Moscow.
Critics argue that this weakens the economic pressure intended to constrain Russia's war effort.
Supporters of the agreement argue that restoring supply is necessary to protect consumers and businesses from escalating energy costs.
Neither position resolves the underlying market question: will the agreement actually increase the total amount of diesel available?
More Russian Diesel Does Not Automatically Mean Lower Prices
There is an important qualification to Trump's proposal.
The IEA's October report states that easing restrictions on Russian diesel exports is unlikely, by itself, to materially change the global market balance.
The reason is straightforward.
Russia cannot export fuel that its damaged refineries are unable to produce.
S&P Global Energy reached a similar conclusion, observing that the quantities announced under the agreement were broadly comparable to, or below, Russia's existing export levels.
Consequently, a change in where Russian diesel is sold may not necessarily produce a corresponding increase in total international supply.
The distinction between redirecting existing cargoes and producing additional diesel is critical.
If Russian fuel previously destined for one buyer is instead delivered to the United States, the receiving country may benefit, but another buyer must find replacement supplies.
A sustained improvement in the international diesel market would require increased refinery output, improved shipping conditions, restoration of disrupted Middle Eastern supplies or reduced demand.
The IEA expects the market to remain under pressure well into 2027.
That is a more cautious assessment than the suggestion that a single diplomatic agreement can resolve the shortage.
Why Both Leaders Have Political Incentives
The dispute also reflects the different responsibilities and incentives facing the two presidents.
Zelensky's priority is Ukraine's ability to resist Russia's invasion. Attacks on energy infrastructure form part of that military strategy.
Acknowledging wider economic consequences could increase pressure on Kiev to limit operations that Ukrainian commanders consider valuable.
Trump, meanwhile, faces the domestic consequences of high fuel prices ahead of the 3 November American midterm elections.
Diesel affects freight, agriculture, manufacturing and consumer prices. A president seeking to demonstrate economic competence has an incentive to secure additional supply and present visible results.
Those incentives do not establish that either leader's statements are deliberately misleading.
They do, however, explain why the same market disruption can be described in radically different ways.
For Ukraine, the refinery campaign is an instrument of war.
For Washington, the resulting supply pressures are an economic and political problem.
For Russia, diesel exports offer revenue and diplomatic leverage.
And for energy-importing countries, the consequences can arrive as higher prices regardless of which government is considered responsible.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
Yes. New Zealand is particularly exposed to disruptions in the international market for refined fuels.
Since the closure of the Marsden Point refinery in 2022, New Zealand has depended on imports of finished petrol, diesel and aviation fuel.
According to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, more than 90 percent of New Zealand's fuel imports in 2025 came from four Asian countries: South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Japan.
That does not insulate New Zealand from events in Russia or the Middle East.
Asian refiners compete for crude oil and refined products in international markets. They are also affected by shipping disruption, higher freight charges and changes in global refining capacity.
When diesel becomes more expensive internationally, New Zealand importers face increased replacement costs even if no Russian diesel is purchased directly.
MBIE's fuel-price monitoring has already identified additional importer costs associated with the 2026 Middle East conflict.
Its September methodology revision incorporated an average increase of approximately 10 cents per litre in assessed diesel importer costs over the affected February-to-September period, reflecting previously unaccounted-for market risk premiums.
This was a measurement adjustment, not evidence that every retail diesel price rose by exactly that amount.
Nevertheless, it demonstrates how international uncertainty can feed into the costs faced by New Zealand fuel importers.
For New Zealand households and businesses, the consequences extend well beyond the service station.
Diesel powers heavy transport, agricultural machinery, construction equipment and much of the freight network.
Higher diesel costs can increase the expense of moving food from farms to processors, transporting goods to supermarkets, operating rural businesses and delivering essential services.
These pressures can eventually reach consumers through higher prices.
Will this in fact make New Zealand stronger?
That question should guide the domestic response.
New Zealand cannot determine the outcome of the war in Ukraine or the conflict involving Iran.
But it can examine whether its fuel-import arrangements, storage capacity, supplier diversity and emergency planning provide adequate protection against disruptions beyond its control.
The government must also distinguish between physical supply security and price security.
Having fuel available is essential.
Having fuel available at a price that households, farmers and businesses can afford is a separate economic challenge.
The closure of domestic refining capacity makes those questions particularly relevant because New Zealand now depends on international refiners for its finished transport fuels.
The Bigger Question: Who Bears the Cost?
The disagreement between Trump and Zelensky illustrates a wider problem in modern warfare.
Military decisions can impose economic costs on people who have no involvement in the conflict.
Ukraine seeks to weaken Russia's capacity to fight.
Russia continues its military operations against Ukraine.
The United States is attempting to manage the resulting diplomatic and economic pressures while confronting a separate energy crisis centred on the Middle East.
Each government has its own priorities.
But international fuel markets transmit the consequences across borders.
The IEA's evidence does not support the proposition that Russian refinery disruptions have no effect on global diesel availability.
Nor does it support the idea that reopening Russian diesel exports alone will restore normal market conditions.
The more defensible conclusion is that several disruptions are interacting, with the Middle East conflict and damage to Russian refining capacity both contributing to an exceptionally tight market.
For New Zealand, the practical issue is not which political leader wins the argument.
It is whether a country dependent on imported refined fuel has sufficient resilience to protect its productive economy and citizens when distant conflicts disrupt the supplies on which everyday life depends.
Sources
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.