Trump calls on Ukraine to stop striking Russian diesel refineries
President Donald Trump called on Ukraine to stop striking Russian diesel refineries, saying the attacks—not his war in Iran—are responsible for fuel prices reaching record highs. The claim puts Ukraine’s refinery campaign at the center of the immediate fuel-market narrative while leaving the durability of any price relief uncertain.
The Financial Times reported that Trump urged Ukraine to halt attacks on Russian diesel refineries. He attributed fuel prices reaching record highs to the strikes rather than to the US war in Iran, framing the refinery campaign as the immediate source of pressure in diesel markets.
The report establishes a political attribution, not a quantified change in refinery capacity, exports or prices. It does not give the level of the record-high fuel price, identify the affected refineries, or describe any Ukrainian response to Trump’s call.
The direct mechanism is through Russian refining and the supply of diesel to global markets: further disruption could constrain available fuel, while a pause could ease supply concerns if lost output or exports were restored. The story also links the issue to the broader US-Iran war, but does not provide evidence resolving the competing explanations for the price move.
The Financial Times did not say whether Ukraine has accepted the request, whether Russia’s refinery operations have materially changed, or whether any diplomatic arrangement is being pursued. Those omissions leave the market impact dependent on subsequent military decisions and confirmed supply data.
Next signals are a Ukrainian response, any further strikes on Russian refining infrastructure, and official or industry data showing changes in Russian refinery runs and diesel exports. The report gives no dated event that would settle the direction of fuel prices.
The refinery dispute leaves diesel exposure caught between possible supply relief from a pause and renewed disruption if strikes continue.
The immediate implication is a wider range of possible diesel outcomes rather than a clean directional trade: a halt in strikes could reduce disruption fears, while continued attacks would preserve the supply-risk premium. The Financial Times supplies no quantified production loss or dated diplomatic milestone, so the decisive evidence is operational data on Russian refinery runs and exports.
A confirmed Ukrainian pause could quickly unwind the supply-risk premium; additional refinery damage or a broader escalation would invalidate the relief case.
CoverageSource: Financial Times · Published here SUN, SEP 13 · 3:08 PM ET · the only report in this recordHow this is decided →
File photo · Jan 7, 2026 · Daniel Torok · Public domain · Source & licenseEarlier context and later coverage are dated relative to this report. Automatically linked reports may cover a broader event.
No later reports linked yet.
Follow this story to find new evidence in your Following desk.
A Ukrainian halt could ease diesel-supply concerns if Russian refinery operations and exports recover, although the report gives no measure of the potential improvement.
Continued strikes would preserve disruption risk, while the Financial Times provides no evidence that Trump’s call has changed Ukraine’s policy.
Kept as written · your side, if you take one, is graded privately against licensed closes after 10 trading days · nothing here is advice · How the Wire is made →