On Wednesday night, Russia launched 629 missiles and drones against dozens of targets across Ukraine, striking heavily populated cities such as Kyiv and Odesa. Video footage on social media shows one apartment building in Kyiv being hit twice in succession, killing 18 civilians, including four children.
These strikes marked the second-largest barrage since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022, but with a notable shift in focus. While residential buildings have increasingly been targeted in recent months, this latest attack damaged the EU’s delegation offices, struck the British Council’s office in Kyiv and even hit the defense factory of Baykar, the Turkish manufacturer of the Bayraktar TB2 drone.
The barrage came as Ukraine increased its own campaign of strikes deep inside Russia. In recent weeks, President Volodymyr Zelensky had appeared to hold back, giving space to the diplomatic track pursued by US President Donald Trump. But after Russia’s Vladimir Putin refused to meet with him directly, Ukraine increased its operations.
What is striking is just how far Ukraine’s capabilities have come: only three years ago, the country had almost no means to hit strategic targets deep inside Russia. Today, Ukrainian forces can strike more than 1,000 km away. In the last week, Ukraine hit multiple oil refineries and distribution hubs, forcing some regions of Russia to ration fuel, while others saw petrol stations run dry. By some estimates, nearly 17 percent of Russia’s refining capacity has been knocked offline.
After gaining diplomatic momentum from brokering a historic peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Trump turned to the far more difficult challenge of peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. His controversial meeting with Putin in Alaska drew sharp criticism at home — not only for the unusual choice of venue but also for the lack of tangible results. To many observers, it appeared that Trump had made concessions to Moscow by softening his earlier calls for an immediate ceasefire and instead aligning with Russia’s position of securing a final peace agreement before any ceasefire is declared.
Yet, just 48 hours later, Trump’s meeting with Zelensky and seven European leaders appeared to breathe new life into the peace process. While some criticized Trump for moving too close to Putin’s position in Alaska, he seemed to move closer to the European position of offering Ukraine some form of security guarantees once the war ends. This was no small shift: while Trump has been adamant that US troops will not be deployed, his openness to providing American support in the form of logistics and intelligence represents a significant concession — and signals his determination to broker a peaceful outcome.
The logical outcome of the meetings in Alaska and Washington would have been progress toward peace. But just when many thought that Ukraine and Russia might take the next step and sit down for talks, it appears that the peace process has stalled.
Reports surfaced that Russia was privately encouraging Trump to pressure Zelensky into ceding control of territory Moscow had not yet captured — specifically in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Zelensky rejected the notion outright, pointing out that Ukraine’s constitution prohibits any president from surrendering national territory. Beyond that, the very idea seemed absurd: over the past 1,000 days of war, Russia has managed to seize less than 1 percent of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory.
To expect Ukraine to hand over thousands of square kilometers in Donetsk without a fight is unreasonable. From Zelensky’s point of view, it is inconceivable. Indeed, in parts of Donetsk that have endured the heaviest fighting, Ukrainian forces have recently made modest but important tactical gains.
At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov publicly declared that the basing of European troops in Ukraine would be a red line for the Kremlin. This statement directly complicates the assurances Trump and European leaders have floated about offering Ukraine security guarantees once a peace agreement is reached.
So, where does this leave the peace process? In short, not in a good place. Russia’s summer offensive has largely petered out, while Ukraine is rapidly developing long-range strike capabilities that continue to disrupt Russia’s energy sector. But this does not mean that Russia is anywhere close to giving up the war — or to sitting down for peace.
After Wednesday’s missile and drone attacks, and the Kremlin’s refusal to budge on any of the key issues that might bring all sides to the negotiating table, it is clear that Moscow remains set on its original goals: controlling Ukraine, whether by military force or political means, and denying Ukrainians their sovereign right to choose their own future — whether that means closer ties to Europe and the transatlantic community or alignment with Moscow.
For Trump, the last week must serve as a stark reminder that achieving peace talks between Russia and Ukraine is far harder than he may have imagined and will require far more effort than has been invested so far. Trump has staked much of his foreign policy credibility on finding a peaceful solution. Even if he shows frustration publicly or hints at walking away from the process, it is unlikely he will do so. The stakes are simply too high — for Ukraine, for Europe and for his own legacy. Even when the prospects appear bleak, Trump should double down on his efforts to secure a fair peace for Ukraine, one that ends the war while preserving the country’s right to determine its own future.
Zelensky has agreed to talks with Putin without conditions and has accepted an immediate ceasefire on land, in the air and at sea. Meanwhile, Putin refuses even to come to the negotiating table. It is clear that Russia is the main obstacle to peace and the sooner Trump recognizes this, the better.