Why Trump Says Zelensky Is Harder Than Putin

Donald Trump (opens in a new tab) escalated his public pressure on Kyiv on 16 October, telling Newsmax that Volodymyr Zelenskyy (opens in a new tab) was "more difficult to deal with" than Vladimir Putin (opens in a new tab) and calling Ukraine's renewed strikes on Russian oil refineries a "disgrace." Reuters reported that Trump tied the refinery attacks to higher global oil prices. The criticism lands while Russia continues striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure, leaving Trump's price argument and the underlying conduct of the war in direct tension.

The immediate accountability question is not whether refinery attacks can affect fuel markets; damaging refining capacity can tighten supply and change expectations. It is why Trump chose to single out Kyiv's strikes while Russia's attacks on Ukraine's power system continued. Reuters said Moscow had kept up missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure even during the period described politically as an energy ceasefire. That matters because a criticism-first account cannot treat the energy market as if only one belligerent is using energy infrastructure as leverage.

The political break is now explicit

Trump's remarks go beyond a dispute over tactics. Saying Zelenskyy is harder to deal with than Putin shifts responsibility for the stalled diplomacy toward the Ukrainian president at the same moment the Kremlin is trying to make that framing stick. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow "fully agrees" with Trump's criticism of Zelenskyy. That alignment does not establish that the US and Russia share a peace plan, but it shows how Trump's words can be used by Moscow in the information contest around the Ukraine war (opens in a new tab).

Zelenskyy answered from Brussels by seeking the opposite coalition signal. European leaders rallied around him at the 16 October summit. Euronews reported that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa said pressure on Russia should continue until Moscow ends the war, while EU foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas described cooperation with Washington as increasingly difficult. The contrast is unusually sharp: Washington's president was publicly attacking Kyiv's conduct while European leaders were presenting continued support for Ukraine as the central line.

The human effect is not abstract. Ukraine is entering another period of pressure on electricity and air defence while civilians face Russian drone and missile attacks. At the same time, higher fuel prices carry household and political costs in the United States and Europe. Trump's strongest defence is therefore straightforward: a president responsible to US voters can argue that Ukrainian strikes on refineries are worsening energy prices and making diplomacy harder. That concern deserves to be tested rather than dismissed.

The evidence, however, does not support assigning the energy burden to Ukraine alone. Russia is the invading power and has continued attacks on Ukrainian energy assets. The war itself, sanctions, shipping risk and attacks on infrastructure all contribute to volatility. A price-based objection to Kyiv's refinery campaign is a policy argument; it is not evidence that Ukraine bears primary responsibility for the conflict's energy consequences.

Starlink added a second contradiction

The allied dispute also widened around communications. British Defence Secretary Wes Streeting said after meeting US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that they welcomed the restoration of Ukraine's Starlink access. Yet Zelenskyy said on 16 October that the speed had not been "fully" restored, although it was improving. He said degraded performance had hindered the interception of some drones. The difference between access and full operational performance is consequential in wartime, and it makes diplomatic assurances insufficient on their own.

That issue is covered in the existing Background article White House ordered Starshield Ukraine limits (opens in a new tab); the new lever here is Trump's explicit comparison of Zelenskyy with Putin and the political response around it. Related context is also available in Zelenskyy resumes Russian refinery strikes (opens in a new tab) and Trump Russian diesel GL135 lawfare (opens in a new tab). Those links supply the earlier chain without duplicating it.

What happens next

The next test is practical rather than rhetorical. If Trump's pressure is meant to produce negotiations, the administration will have to show what reciprocal restraint it expects from Russia, not only what it wants Ukraine to stop doing. If Europe intends to compensate for a widening US-Ukraine rift, its promises will be judged by air-defence support, financing and political unity. And if Starlink access is described as restored, Ukrainian units need to experience restoration at usable speed.

For Trump, the contradiction is now public: he says refinery strikes are unacceptable because of their market effect, while the adversary whose invasion created the war continues attacking Ukraine's energy system. For Zelenskyy, the burden is also real: he must show that attacks inside Russia deliver military value proportionate to the diplomatic and market costs they create. Both claims can be tested against results rather than slogans.

Questions people ask

What did Trump say about Zelensky and Putin?

Trump told Newsmax on 16 October that Zelenskyy was more difficult for him to deal with than Putin, according to Reuters, while also condemning Ukraine's resumed refinery strikes.

Why did Trump call Ukraine's strikes a disgrace?

He argued that attacks on Russian refineries raise world oil prices. That is his stated policy case; it does not erase Russia's continuing attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

Did the EU back Zelensky in Brussels?

Yes. European leaders publicly rallied around Zelenskyy on 16 October and reiterated support for Ukraine while signaling that pressure on Russia should continue.

Latest (2026-10-17): Newsmax 15 Oct and Brussels reply

On 15 October 2026, Donald Trump told Newsmax that he was “not a big fan” of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said Ukraine’s president was harder to deal with than Vladimir Putin, and called Ukraine’s renewed strikes on Russian oil refineries “a disgrace” because he blamed them for higher global oil prices. At the European Union summit in Brussels the next day, Zelenskyy answered that dealing with Trump was easier than dealing with Putin and that Ukraine had a right to defend itself after being attacked. The dispute is about more than diplomatic style: it concerns which side is being pressed to change its conduct while Russia’s invasion continues. (RFE/RL (opens in a new tab); Euronews (opens in a new tab))

Trump’s public argument is that Ukrainian attacks on Russian refining infrastructure aggravate an energy-price problem that is already politically costly in the United States. His Newsmax remarks put the blame on Kyiv’s decision to resume the strikes, after a brief pause that Zelenskyy said Ukraine ended because Russia had not stopped attacking Ukrainian energy sites. The president’s criticism also came as his administration pursued a Russian-diesel arrangement intended to increase fuel supply and ease prices. Those are Trump’s stated reasons; they do not, by themselves, establish how much the Ukrainian strikes have moved global prices or whether the diesel arrangement can materially lower them. (Reuters)

Zelenskyy’s answer was that Ukraine cannot treat its own energy targets as a one-sided obligation while Russian attacks continue. Speaking to Euronews in Brussels, he said he was defending Ukraine’s interests and that the country had a right to defend itself. He also argued that the diesel arrangement could become a precedent for wider sanctions relief, rather than a narrow response to market disruption. That is Kyiv’s assessment of the risk, not proof that further concessions have already been agreed. (Euronews (opens in a new tab))

The immediate human cost remains visible in the attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. On 16 October, the Kyiv Independent reported at least three people killed and 52 others injured across Ukraine over the previous day, with attacks damaging energy infrastructure in several regions. The report described 370,000 people in Volyn Oblast left without electricity, seven people injured after a drone crashed in Kyiv’s Pechersk district, and additional casualties in other regions. These figures describe separate attacks and regional reports; they should not be collapsed into a single claim about one strike. (Kyiv Independent (opens in a new tab))

The cost of energy disruption is not limited to the price paid for a barrel of oil. Damage to power infrastructure affects households, businesses, water pressure, heating preparation and the ability to keep essential services running as winter approaches. The same day’s reporting described fires in Kyiv’s Shevchenkivskyi and Solomianskyi districts and reduced water pressure in several districts after damage to a critical energy facility. A policy argument about refinery strikes therefore sits beside a measurable question: how much pressure is being placed on civilians whose energy supply is already under attack? (The New Voice of Ukraine (opens in a new tab))

Trump has condemned Ukraine’s refinery strikes as a threat to energy prices, while Russian attacks have continued to damage Ukraine’s power system and residential areas. That contrast does not prove that every Ukrainian strike is lawful, strategically effective or economically harmless. It does show why a ceasefire proposal cannot be assessed only by whether Kyiv pauses its attacks: the other party’s conduct and the actual condition of the energy infrastructure also matter.