More importantly, Moscow has clearly underscored its unyielding position toward Ukraine. The country demonstrates an unwillingness to bend on its maximalist demands, even after significant diplomatic tensions continue to rise. This comes after a huge ramp up in martial activity. This last week Russia launched one of its most brutal aerial attacks to date. The attack, which consisted of 574 suicide drones and 40 cruise missiles, targeted most of the territory of Ukraine. This assault resulted in a minimum of one death and 15 wounded.
The new military action put a shiver through Ukraine’s cabinet. As a result, the U.S. electronics manufacturer’s foreign minister confirmed their suspicion that they were one of the targets of the aerial assault. These attacks show the dangers of Russia’s continued aggression and its demand to negotiate from a position of strength.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov trumpeted recently. All this goes to underscore the Trump administration’s goal of conditioning any Ukrainian postwar support on giving Moscow, in effect, a veto over what those terms would be. He cast doubt on the credibility of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to sign any peace agreements down the road. Lavrov stated, “We support the principles and security guarantees that were agreed … in April 2022. Anything else … is of course an absolutely futile undertaking.”
The prospect for credible peace talks seems more and more like a distant hope with each passing day. Unfortunately, Lavrov’s statements have thrown quite a bit of cold water on the prospect of negotiations returning to life. He said Moscow would like to return to the outline first suggested during the initial peace negotiations in Istanbul in spring 2022. That much we know, as President Putin has been explicit about his position. He’ll only see Zelenskyy if it is first what Russia wants to hear.
Zelenskyy, for his part, has publicly expressed his hope for an American “strong reaction” should Putin reject bilateral talks. He stated, “I responded immediately to the proposal for a bilateral meeting: we are ready. What if the Russians are not ready?” This serves to further highlight the still significant uncertainty that remains over the nature of diplomatic engagement between the two countries.
At the same time, tensions have increased, both between Russia and Ukraine, and over the prospect of a larger Western military role. France, Britain, and Estonia have already announced plans to deploy troops to Ukraine once the war has ended. Lavrov has denounced this action, calling it “foreign interference.” Again, he doubled down and said that these proposals would be unacceptable since any troop presence would undermine national sovereignty.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Trump’s been pushing this sort of thing for years. He’s been a strong advocate for Ukraine in those negotiations. His comments signal a growing debate within U.S. political circles about the future of American engagement in the conflict. Trump remarked, “It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning!”
Otherwise, on Wednesday the White House continued to project an upbeat front. Through deft maneuvers of international diplomacy, they reaffirmed their continued support for Ukraine and produced clear signs that those efforts will likely persist.
Yet as both sides dig in deeper, the prospect for a resolution becomes less and less clear. The international community is painfully in solidarity with Ukraine. These military actions and political statements are drastically impacting the future of Ukraine and the course of their relationship with Russia.