Russia launched a large-scale combined missile-and-drone attack across Ukraine overnight into 3 February, hitting Kyiv, Kharkiv and other areas and damaging energy infrastructure as temperatures fell to near minus 20C.
Ukrainian officials said at least four people were injured, with fires reported and emergency crews deployed to restore services.
The strikes left a significant portion of the capital without heating. Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said 1,170 residential buildings had lost heat after the attack, a reminder that the war’s immediate pressure point remains basic services rather than front-line movement.
In Kharkiv, officials said thermal energy infrastructure was struck. Reuters reported that the city’s leadership ordered coolant drained from 820 buildings connected to one thermal plant to prevent freezing damage to the heating system. Strikes were also reported in Sumy, with apartment buildings damaged, and in parts of the Kharkiv region where power was cut.
The attack landed as Washington attempts to sponsor a new track of talks in Abu Dhabi on 4–5 February, with Ukrainian, Russian and US participation. Steve Witkoff is expected to attend, according to multiple reports, amid inconsistent public messaging on who is leading the US side and what is on the table.
It is against that background that Donald Trump’s approach looks exposed in practice. The US president had publicly urged limits on attacks against energy infrastructure, but the pause he sought has been contested and, in Ukrainian accounts, fragile. Ukraine said a week-long energy ceasefire was meant to run through the first week of February, while Russia argued it ended on 2 February. The renewed strikes, hitting heating and power in sub-zero conditions, illustrate how easily Moscow can collapse an informal understanding while continuing to engage diplomatically.
That dynamic goes to the core critique from analysts: a settlement process built on pressure for quick outcomes, without agreed enforcement, risks functioning as a timetable rather than leverage. In recent weeks, Ukrainian and Western officials have discussed enforcement models precisely because Russian compliance is treated as uncertain. The Financial Times reported a multi-tier plan under which violations would trigger staged responses within 24 to 72 hours, potentially involving a “coalition of the willing” and, at the highest level, US forces. The existence of such a plan underscores a basic point: any ceasefire would need monitoring, attribution and credible escalation options, not simply signatures and deadlines.
Concerns about the substance of the US blueprint have also been aired by policy institutions. A draft of a “28-point” plan attributed to Trump was reported by Axios as requiring Ukraine to accept territorial losses in the east, cap its armed forces, and rule out NATO membership. Separate commentary from Chatham House and Atlantic Council argued that the structure of the proposal, and the tempo of US pressure, could leave Kyiv facing a choice between concessions and loss of US backing. A further assessment by CSIS described the plan as incomplete and provision-by-provision, emphasising gaps in enforceability and sequencing.
The gap between diplomacy and battlefield incentives is also visible in Russia’s continued focus on the grid. Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 2 February that there had been no missile or drone strikes on major energy infrastructure in the previous 24 hours, attributing the lull to US diplomacy, while noting continued damage from shelling near the front line. Less than a day later, large areas of Kyiv and Kharkiv were dealing with the immediate consequences of strikes on heating and power systems.
Europe is simultaneously tightening its own energy posture. The EU has adopted a binding, stepwise ban designed to end imports of Russian gas by late 2027, a move described by the European Commission as aimed at cutting off revenue that helps fund the war. That policy trajectory contrasts with Trump’s preference for dealmaking centred on rapid de-escalation, and it raises a practical question for the talks: whether economic pressure will be treated as a bargaining chip to be traded away, or as a constraint to be sustained until compliance is demonstrable.
Trump has also framed his diplomacy in broader transactional terms, pointing to external energy shifts. But the test is implementation. Reuters reported Trump saying that India’s prime minister agreed to halt purchases of Russian oil as part of a trade deal. Even if fully enacted, such changes operate on commercial timelines, while Russian strike capacity can be reassembled within days.
The overnight bombardment does not, by itself, settle the question of whether a negotiated end is possible. It does, however, highlight what a “peace plan” needs to answer: how violations are detected, what happens when they occur, and what costs are imposed quickly enough to matter. Without those mechanics, the pattern seen this week—talks scheduled, then heat and power hit—will remain a feature rather than a failure of the process.
