G20

In the early hours of Thursday morning, Russia launched one of its most devastating assaults on Kyiv since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, unleashing a barrage of missiles and drones that killed twelve people and wounded more than seventy others, including six children. The attack, confirmed by Ukrainian authorities, marked a new escalation in Moscow’s ongoing campaign of terror against Ukraine’s civilian population.

The strike involved Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, ballistic rockets, and Shahed-type drones, delivered in a carefully coordinated operation designed to overwhelm air defences and inflict maximum civilian harm. Kyiv was not the only target—Kharkiv and several other regions were also hit in a sweeping offensive that made no distinction between military objectives and civilian life.

This was not a military engagement; it was a calculated act of mass violence against a capital city. Entire residential blocks were torn apart. Emergency workers toiled through the night to contain fires, dig through rubble, and retrieve the dead and wounded—many of them pulled from beneath collapsed buildings in scenes of devastation rarely seen since the early days of the full-scale invasion.

Elsewhere in the country, towns and cities were struck with similar ferocity. Initial assessments indicate that homes, hospitals, and essential utilities were among the primary targets. The scale and precision of the attacks leave no doubt: this was a deliberate attempt to paralyse Ukraine’s civil infrastructure and terrorise the population into submission.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, responding to the attack, condemned the continued violation of the ceasefire agreement initially proposed by the United States. “Forty-four days ago, Ukraine agreed to a full ceasefire. It was a proposal from the United States,” he stated. “For forty-four days, Russia has continued to kill people and avoid serious pressure or accountability for it.”

This latest wave of violence follows what Russia called a “ceasefire“—a declaration that has proven entirely hollow. In reality, for forty-four consecutive days since that announcement, Russia has continued to launch attacks, kill civilians, and target non-military infrastructure without consequence. There has been no ceasefire. What has continued is Russia’s systematic campaign of terror, and what has not followed is any serious pressure or accountability from those capable of enforcing it.

Against this backdrop, President Donald Trump has claimed to have reached an “understanding” with Moscow, suggesting that negotiating with Russia has been easier than dealing with Ukraine. No details have been shared—no texts, no terms, no verification—only vague assertions made while missiles continue to strike Ukrainian cities. These statements, however, have not gone unnoticed in Kyiv.

Trump’s position appears to be backed by Steve Witkoff, his close associate and informal representative, who has travelled to Russia for talks with Kremlin officials. While no official outcomes have been announced, there is growing concern that the discussions include the potential recognition of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory—a prospect that is categorically unacceptable to Ukraine and, if acted upon, would violate international law.

These overtures are not viewed as neutral diplomatic efforts. Each time Washington entertains the illusion of progress with Moscow, the attacks grow more severe. Every phrase about “finding common ground” with Putin seems to be followed by another wave of missiles and drones. The correlation is too consistent to ignore.

What Putin seeks is not peace. He seeks time—time to destroy, to entrench his occupation, to wear down resistance, and to test the limits of Western unity. And by engaging with Trump, even informally, the Kremlin is attempting to draw the United States into this strategy, not as a mediator, but as a participant.

There is a broader danger as well. Russia’s war is no longer confined to the battlefield. It is shaping political discourse in the West. Authoritarian narratives are finding space in mainstream debate. Far-right movements—once marginal—are gaining influence, emboldened by the spectacle of high-level engagement with an aggressor state. Moscow’s hybrid campaign has always targeted more than Ukraine; it seeks to reshape the global order to its advantage.

At this moment, informal diplomacy conducted behind closed doors only strengthens that objective. When representatives of the US administration engage with Putin outside established international frameworks—particularly during active hostilities—they provide space for the Kremlin to manoeuvre, legitimise, and continue its assault.

Ukraine is calling not for gestures, but for clarity: full diplomatic transparency, unwavering support for its territorial integrity, and a refusal to reward aggression with recognition. Anything less, especially under current conditions, risks enabling further violence—not ending it.