Ukraine launched a fresh strike on a Russian oil refinery in Syzran on Tuesday, underscoring that no cease‑fire on energy targets exists between Kyiv and Moscow.

The attack came just hours after former US president Donald Trump declared publicly that the two sides had agreed to halt attacks on each other's energy infrastructure. Neither Kyiv nor Moscow confirmed any such pact, and both sides continued to hit civilian‑linked sites, Ukraine on a Russian refinery, Russia on two fuel stations in Kyiv that left one dead and eight wounded.

Record‑high strikes on Russian refineries

According to the Ukrainian open‑source monitoring group Oko Hora, Ukrainian forces struck 70 targets inside the Russian Federation in August, the highest monthly total since the war began in February 2022. Of those, 23 were oil refineries, a new record, and another 23 were logistics warehouses. Some facilities were hit repeatedly; the map compiled by Oko Hora shows one refinery struck five times and several others struck twice.

"For the second consecutive month we have been breaking records for the number of strikes, including on oil refineries, airfields and logistics centres," the group wrote in a statement. The data suggests a deliberate escalation of the campaign to erode Russia's fuel‑processing capacity, a strategy Kyiv says is intended to pressure the Kremlin ahead of winter.

Trump's false cease‑fire narrative

Trump's claim that Ukraine and Russia had agreed not to target each other's energy assets was quickly debunked by Western media outlets and by officials in Kyiv. The former president's announcement appeared to be an attempt to shift blame for the steep rise in diesel prices in the United States onto Ukrainian actions, rather than on the broader geopolitical turmoil.

In a series of tweets, Trump wrote that "the world's diesel price rise is mostly caused by the Russia/Ukraine war, not Iran." He repeated the line in a televised interview, linking the price surge to Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries. Analysts, however, point to the war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as the dominant factor.

Data from the Kyiv School of Economics Institute, cited by the Financial Times, estimates that the conflict in the Persian Gulf reduced diesel exports by 152 million barrels between March and August, more than double the 68 million‑barrel reduction caused by Russia's own export curbs. The institute's researchers conclude that the Iranian war has a 2.2‑times greater impact on global diesel prices than Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries.

U.S. Energy Information Administration charts confirm that diesel prices on American highways did not begin to climb sharply until March, after the Iranian escalation, whereas Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries intensified later in the spring and summer.

What the cease‑fire would mean for Europeans

European consumers have felt the ripple effects of higher fuel costs across the continent, with diesel and gasoline prices climbing in many markets. If a genuine cease‑fire on energy infrastructure were in place, it could ease the pressure on global oil markets, potentially lowering transport costs for goods and reducing inflationary pressures on households.

But the reality on the ground remains stark. Russia has continued to target Ukrainian energy sites, a tactic that has left millions of Ukrainians without reliable heating during the harsh winter months. In a statement, President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine remains open to a mutual suspension of attacks but doubts Russia's willingness to honour any agreement.

"Ukraine has proposed that its partners secure an agreement with Russia that would stop the destruction of critical infrastructure," Zelensky wrote on social media. "We are not convinced that Russia is willing to abide by any agreement."

Analysts at the Financial Times note that President Vladimir Putin appears reluctant to negotiate a cease‑fire before winter, believing that continued strikes on Ukrainian energy facilities could force Kyiv to make concessions.

Historical parallels and the human cost

Some commentators compare the current pattern of rear‑area strikes to the "War of the Cities" fought between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, when both sides bombed civilian centres to break morale. The Russian think‑tank Conflict Intelligence Team draws a longer line back to the medieval "chevauchée," a strategy of devastating enemy countryside to undermine economic stability and erode confidence in ruling authorities.

"The current 'Putin chevauchée' pursues similar aims: to inflict maximum economic damage on Ukraine, paralyse civilian life, undermine public confidence in the Ukrainian government and increase the cost to Western allies of supporting the country," CIT analysts wrote.

For ordinary Ukrainians, the toll is immediate. Zelensky has repeatedly highlighted that Ukrainian energy facilities, ports, logistics hubs and even warehouses storing food and medicines are under constant attack. The destruction of these assets threatens not only the war effort but also civilian access to essential services.

Russian attacks on Kyiv's fuel stations

In a mirror of Ukraine's strikes, Russian forces hit two fuel stations in Kyiv on Tuesday, killing one civilian and wounding eight others. The attacks were captured on social media, with users condemning the targeting of civilian infrastructure.

"Russia hit two gas stations in Kyiv this morning. One dead, eight wounded. This is the kind of 'energy cease‑fire' you can expect from Russia," posted a Ukrainian journalist on Twitter, highlighting the asymmetry between the two sides' rhetoric and actions.

Broader military losses

Data compiled by the open‑source project Oryx shows that, as of 14 September, Russia had lost 24,098 pieces of heavy equipment since the start of the war, including 4,447 tanks, of which 3,352 were destroyed in combat. Ukraine's losses stood at 12,143 items, including 1,462 tanks, with 1,120 destroyed.

These figures, based on photographic evidence, illustrate the high material cost of the conflict for both sides, even as the war increasingly moves into the realm of strategic strikes on infrastructure rather than front‑line battles.

Implications for European energy security

Europe's reliance on Russian oil and gas has already been reduced through diversification efforts, but the continued targeting of refineries in Russia and energy sites in Ukraine adds a layer of uncertainty to global supply chains. While Europe has built up strategic reserves and accelerated the rollout of renewable capacity, the volatility of fuel markets remains a concern for policymakers.

European trade unions have warned that higher energy prices will hit workers' real wages, especially in sectors such as transport and logistics that are already facing cost pressures. The European Trade Union Confederation called for stronger coordination among EU member states to shield households from fuel‑price spikes, suggesting targeted subsidies and price caps as possible tools.

At the same time, industry groups argue that any artificial halt to attacks on energy infrastructure could create a false sense of security and reduce the incentive for Russia to diversify its own energy exports, potentially prolonging the market's dependence on volatile supplies.

What comes next?

With the Ukrainian offensive in the north‑eastern Donetsk region, dubbed "Operation Vivaldi", making modest gains, Kyiv appears focused on reclaiming territory while maintaining pressure on Russian energy assets. The 3rd Army Corps announced the liberation of several villages north of Lyman, clearing 75 sq km of infiltrators and securing a further 10 sq km.

Brigadier General Andriy Biletskyi described the operation as the first "season" of Vivaldi, hinting at a longer campaign aimed at pushing Russian forces back from the Chornyi Zherebets river line.

For the United States, the upcoming November congressional elections may shape how the Trump administration continues to frame the war's economic impact. Critics argue that Trump's focus on blaming Ukraine for fuel price hikes distracts from the broader consequences of US‑led actions in the Middle East and the ongoing sanctions regime against Russia.

In the meantime, European governments will have to balance support for Ukraine with domestic pressures from rising energy costs. The European Commission is expected to present a new package of measures to stabilise fuel markets later this month, potentially including coordinated strategic reserves releases and targeted assistance for low‑income households.

As the war enters its fifth year, the pattern of strikes on energy infrastructure is likely to persist, with both sides using fuel as a lever in a conflict that increasingly blurs the line between military targets and civilian livelihoods.