The past week has shown that the war in Ukraine is entering an especially tense phase — not only on the battlefield but also in the diplomatic sphere. On one hand, there is an escalation in both Ukrainian-Russian and Russian-American relations. However, none of the parties are withdrawing from the negotiation process — on the contrary, they are striving to continue it. This indicates that the current escalation is not aimed at achieving military victory, but serves as a tool of pressure and a demonstration of advantages with the goal of leveraging them at the negotiating table.
In this case, we are witnessing a tense phase that could evolve either into concrete agreements or into a complete collapse of the current negotiation track — both between Ukraine and Russia and between the United States and Russia. This, in turn, would lead to a sharp military escalation, in which the outcome of the war would be determined exclusively on the battlefield. Full-fledged new negotiations are unlikely to be possible without a shift in the military balance and without a clear risk of capitulation by one of the sides. In the foreseeable future — over the next few months or even a year — such a negotiating opportunity appears unlikely, though it may arise later if the situation at the front changes.
The Peace Negotiation Process
Following three days of massive missile and drone attacks by Russia on Ukrainian territory, U.S. President Donald Trump lashed out at Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a statement published on his Truth Social page, Trump called Putin “absolutely CRAZY.” According to him, the strikes on Ukrainian cities — which resulted in numerous civilian casualties — amounted to “senseless killing.” Later, Trump posted again: “Vladimir Putin doesn’t understand that if it weren’t for me, really bad things — and I mean very bad things — would have already happened to Russia. He’s playing with fire!” These statements have become some of Trump's harshest public remarks toward the Russian president throughout their political relationship. Putin’s actions — especially the attacks resulting in civilian deaths — undermine Trump’s image as a “peacemaker” in the eyes of both allies and the American electorate. This compels Trump to publicly condemn Moscow in order to avoid appearing as an “ally of the aggressor.” However, no specific promises of sanctions or increased pressure on Russia from the U.S. have been made thus far.
Nonetheless, Donald Trump has not taken any concrete steps toward imposing sanctions on Russia. This restraint is driven by several factors. First and foremost, the introduction of secondary sanctions against Russia would harm U.S. economic interests — particularly its trade relations with China and India, the two largest economies still purchasing Russian goods. Moreover, a sharp escalation could increase tensions with Moscow to the point of risking nuclear confrontation — something Trump’s team is determined to avoid. They view the war in Ukraine as a secondary conflict that does not warrant direct U.S. military involvement, while the strategic focus should shift to Asia and the strengthening of U.S. armed forces. As of now, there are no signs that this policy line will be reconsidered.
It is also important to note that President Donald Trump’s frustration with President Vladimir Putin has grown in part due to Moscow’s increasing ambitions.
In particular, this followed a phone conversation between the two leaders, during which they reportedly discussed possible terms for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. According to unofficial sources, one scenario under discussion involved Russia retaining control over five occupied Ukrainian regions (presumably Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea), while Ukraine would adopt a neutral status in exchange for security guarantees and the cessation of hostilities.
According to this hypothetical scenario, the United States might have turned a blind eye to Russia’s de facto retention of these territories — on the condition that Moscow ceased hostilities and agreed to a framework ceasefire. However, immediately following the discussions, the Russian side began to rapidly raise the stakes.
First, Moscow began speaking about the need to create a buffer zone in northern Ukraine. This implies the occupation of additional Ukrainian territories adjacent to the Russian border — in the Sumy, Chernihiv, and Kharkiv regions. Under the pretext of protecting border areas from Ukrainian drone attacks and raids, Russia effectively asserted a right to seize new parts of Ukrainian territory that were not initially part of the discussed “compromise.”
Second, rhetorical escalation began. Russian officials started making statements suggesting that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was allegedly “illegitimate,” and that all of Ukraine’s territory is historically Russian — and therefore, the war there is an internal Russian affair.
This rhetoric is perceived in Washington — and especially within Donald Trump’s team — as “political insolence” and a breach of informal understandings, as if Moscow began haggling after already receiving a generous “offer.”
Thus, in Trump’s eyes, the Kremlin acted “brazenly” — instead of locking in a compromise and demonstrating flexibility, the Russian side began to demand more: expanded territorial control, escalation of hostilities, massive strikes, the legitimization of a buffer zone, and ideological revanche. This undermined trust, soured the atmosphere of negotiations, and forced Donald Trump to publicly distance himself from Vladimir Putin so as not to appear weak or complicit in what Trump's opponents in Western media portray as a so-called “Western capitulation.”
On its part, Moscow responded to the U.S. President’s harsh remarks with noticeable pragmatism. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov described Trump’s words as a reaction driven by “emotional overload,” while adding that Russia is “closely monitoring the U.S. response” and continues to proceed from the premise of ensuring its own security. According to Peskov, Russia’s strikes are retaliatory measures in response to attacks on “peaceful infrastructure” within its territory, allowing Moscow to maintain its narrative of being the “defending side” and avoid severing potential communication channels with Washington.
A firmer response came from Yuri Ushakov, the Russian President’s aide on international affairs. In his view, Donald Trump is “insufficiently informed” about the situation and is unaware that Ukrainian drones are striking Russian regions:
“President Trump is probably unaware of the real picture. Moscow delivers retaliatory strikes solely on military targets in response to Ukrainian aggression,” Ushakov noted.
A more aggressive stance was taken by Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council and a representative of the so-called “hawkish wing.” He wrote:
“I know only one truly bad thing — World War III. I hope Trump understands that!”
These remarks sparked a strong reaction from Washington. A White House spokesperson called Medvedev’s statement “unfortunate” and “reckless,” emphasizing that such threats are unacceptable from a country that claims to be a responsible global power.
Keith Kellogg, Donald Trump’s special representative for Ukraine, also issued a response. In his official comment, he stated:
“Spreading fear of a third world war is an irresponsible and unacceptable remark from Mr. Medvedev. President Donald Trump is working to stop this war and end the senseless bloodshed. We expect the Russian Federation to submit the peace memorandum you promised a week ago. Cease fire now.”
The U.S. State Department underscored that despite heightened tensions, diplomatic efforts to achieve peace are ongoing. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said:
“We continue to support direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The President supports any mechanism that will lead to a just, sustainable, and lasting peace — any mechanism. There is no military solution to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine; a diplomatic path is essential.”
Thus, despite sharp rhetoric and escalating hostilities on the ground, the diplomatic and public “crossfire” between U.S. and Russian officials is still accompanied by efforts to preserve the negotiation framework. For now, these signals have not materialized into a full-fledged political process, but they indicate that — despite the confrontation — both sides are striving not to close the door to future dialogue.
A new round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine is being prepared in the coming days. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha stated that Kyiv expects Moscow to present its vision for peace talks in the form of a memorandum. According to him, one of the key topics will be a ceasefire. At the same time, he emphasized that Ukraine’s position remains unchanged: “There will be no compromises on sovereignty and territorial integrity, no recognition of occupied territories, and no restrictions on the choice of alliances.” Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is also conducting preparatory work for a possible meeting between Presidents Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin.
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the second round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine could take place in Istanbul on June 2, 2025. He had earlier mentioned that the draft memorandum would be presented to Ukraine following the completion of a prisoner exchange, which took place last week when both sides released 1,000 prisoners of war each.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that the head of the Ukrainian delegation, Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, held a phone conversation with the head of the Russian negotiating team, Vladimir Medinsky, after the large-scale prisoner exchange that took place over the past weekend. According to Zelensky, Umerov posed a direct question about Russia’s willingness to present its terms for ending the war. In response, Medinsky confirmed that the relevant memorandum “will” be prepared. Earlier, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that the negotiation teams of Ukraine and Russia are “working on drafting a list of conditions for a temporary ceasefire.”
U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Keith Kellogg stated that Washington has received a list of conditions for a peace agreement from Ukraine and is now awaiting a corresponding document from Russia. He emphasized that the next round of negotiations may take place once these documents are compared.
Overall, the sides appear to have fundamentally different visions regarding the memorandums. With a high degree of probability, the Russian document will contain previously voiced demands — in particular, conditions outlined during the Istanbul talks, including Ukraine’s neutral status, security guarantees excluding nuclear weapons, and territorial concessions. Ukraine, for its part, has already made it clear that it will not discuss any compromises related to sovereignty, territorial integrity, or its right to choose alliances. Under such circumstances, both memorandums risk becoming not a foundation for dialogue but two parallel monologues — in essence, ultimatums that offer no room for mutual concessions. This poses a serious threat to the very prospect of the next round of negotiations, especially if the United States does not assume political responsibility and begin applying consistent pressure on both parties.
As for the European allies, they too are seeking to reclaim their place at the negotiating table. At present, European states continue to increase military and financial support for Ukraine, acting not only out of solidarity but also based on considerations of strategic security. Europe is interested in preserving the negotiation track because it recognizes that Ukraine’s defeat would mean not only the collapse of its independence but also a systemic capitulation of Europe itself in the realm of security. A Russian victory in this conflict would lead to political and geopolitical destabilization across the continent. In such a scenario, several national governments within the EU might begin forming separate arrangements with Moscow, undermining a unified foreign policy and transatlantic unity. This threat is felt particularly acutely by European bureaucratic institutions and the governments of Western European countries, for whom the preservation of the collective security architecture is a matter of survival for the EU’s political model.
Massive Strikes on Ukraine.
From May 24 to 26, 2025, the Russian Federation carried out three large-scale aerial strikes on Ukrainian territory, using ballistic and cruise missiles as well as long-range drones. The attacks targeted Kyiv, as well as the Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, Zhytomyr, and Ternopil regions. These were among the largest air raids of the entire war: Russia set a record twice in terms of the number of drones used — up to 300 in a single night.
- Night of May 24: Up to 14 ballistic missiles and around 250 drones; primary target — Kyiv; Ukrainian Armed Forces shot down 6 missiles.
- Night of May 25: 69 missiles (45 intercepted) and 298 drones; 16 people killed, including three children; 22 confirmed impacts.
- Night of May 26: More than 300 drones and 9 cruise missiles (according to Ukraine’s military, all missiles were intercepted); 5 direct hits.
Primary targets of the strikes:
- Antonov plant in Kyiv (aviation industry)
- Vasylkiv airbase
- Ammunition depots
- Railway logistics infrastructure
Damage:
- Kyiv: Nine residential buildings, two schools, a clinic, several Ukrposhta branches, a boiler house, and a power line were damaged; Obolonskyi District was particularly affected.
- Kyiv region: 4 killed, 16 injured.
- Zhytomyr region: Three children killed.
- Kharkiv: Damage to residential and critical infrastructure.
- Mykolaiv: Destruction in the private sector; one teenager injured.
- Khmelnytskyi region: Damage to private homes, no casualties.
- Odesa region: Damage to residential buildings and infrastructure.
Moscow stated that the targets were defense-industrial enterprises, UAV control centers, and signals intelligence nodes. Ukraine, however, insists that the strikes were directed at civilian infrastructure. As of May 26, at least 16 people had been killed, including children.
Russia’s massive strikes on Ukraine pursue both political and military-operational objectives. First and foremost, through this sharp escalation, the Kremlin aims to strengthen its position in potential negotiations, signaling to Kyiv and the West (primarily the U.S.) that it will not succumb to external pressure and will not accept ceasefire terms imposed from a position of strength. It is a message that Russia rejects the format of ultimatums and is unwilling to make concessions dictated on someone else’s terms. The second important factor is retaliation for the unprecedented Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian territory: more than 1,400 drones in one week inflicted significant damage to infrastructure, disrupted civil aviation, and undermined the sense of internal security. In this context, Moscow’s massive strikes also serve as an act of retribution and a show of force. Finally, the third objective is military-operational: the attacks on the Antonov plant, the airbase in Vasylkiv, ammunition depots, and transport infrastructure (including railway hubs) point to preparations for a major summer offensive on the front lines.
Ukrainian authorities have classified the strikes as an act of terror. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated:
“Only a sense of complete impunity can allow Russia to carry out such strikes.”
He also promised a symmetrical response and an expansion of drone and missile production:
“There in Russia, they must clearly feel the consequences of what they are doing to Ukraine. And they will.”
Head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak stated:
“Without pressure on Moscow, we get the deaths of our people… Russia is stalling all processes related to ending the war in order to continue killing.”
He emphasized:
“A ceasefire is the first step toward ending the war, and it would confirm Russia’s willingness to stop the killings.”
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha also stressed the need to increase sanctions pressure.
President Zelensky also appealed to the United States to expedite the delivery of air defense systems, especially the Patriot system. Ukraine is ready to purchase at least 10 such systems. He emphasized that the current air defense systems are unable to cope with large-scale attacks, and existing resources do not cover the entire territory. President Zelensky also confirmed The Economist’s assessment that Russia may be preparing to launch up to 1,000 Shahed drones simultaneously. According to him, Russia is already producing 300–350 drones per day, creating the threat of regular large-scale strikes.
The U.S., citing logistical challenges and its own security needs, declined the request — a decision that caused frustration in Kyiv. Ukraine believes that the U.S. is increasingly acting as a broker in resource distribution rather than as a strategic ally. This is perceived as a transformation in the relationship: Ukraine’s security has become just one component of Washington’s broader global priorities.
New threats have been voiced in Russia against Germany in the context of the possible delivery of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of the RT television channel, stated that strikes on Berlin are being “seriously discussed” in Moscow’s decision-making circles if Germany not only supplies Ukraine with Taurus missiles but also authorizes their use for strikes on Moscow. Her statement came as CDU leader Friedrich Merz avoided giving a direct answer regarding the prospects of transferring these systems to Kyiv. Meanwhile, German media report that the Taurus missiles have not yet been officially provided to Ukraine. At the same time, the German government has approved a new military aid package for Ukraine worth €5 billion and confirmed its plans to invest in the development and production of Ukrainian long-range strike systems. This could serve as an alternative to direct deliveries and mark a new phase of technological partnership in the defense sector.
The recent massive strikes — both by Russia on Ukrainian cities and by Ukraine on Russian territory — have contributed to the strengthening of the so-called “parties of war” on all sides involved. These political and military factions, interested in the continuation of the conflict, are actively seeking to derail any progress toward a negotiated settlement.
Mutual escalation not only increases the number of casualties and destruction but also “politically cements” the conflict, making the conditions for a diplomatic settlement increasingly difficult.
Military Operations
During this time, a new Russian offensive began on several fronts, with extremely rapid momentum.
Over the course of the week (May 21–28, 2025), Russian forces captured approximately 180 km² of additional Ukrainian territory and now control a total of 113,042 km².
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged difficulties on the Kostiantynivka front, where Russian troops have been making advances.
“Just like on the Pokrovsk front, we had issues in Kostiantynivka, but we also had successful engagements. In the past 48 hours, we pushed them back by 4 kilometers in Kostiantynivka.”
Zelensky also stated that Ukrainian forces are present in Russia’s Kursk region and will remain there at least until a ceasefire is announced:
“We exited from one direction (Sudzha) and entered another (Tetkino). We are there until Russia chooses to end this war — or at least until it stops firing.”
He also emphasized that the Ukrainian Armed Forces “have strong tactical groundwork” in this direction, despite the fact that Russia has concentrated over 50,000 troops in the Kursk region — the largest and most powerful Russian grouping, with the goal of advancing 10 kilometers deep into Sumy region.
Current Situation:
- Russian forces are conducting an offensive in northern Sumy region, having seized 67.5 km² of Ukrainian territory (Novenke, Basivka, Zhuravka, Veselivka, Belovody). Another 61.6 km² is in the gray zone (Belovody, Loknia, Vodolahy). Russian troops are attempting to seize the Yunakivka–Sumy highway. Russia can now advance southward — from Belovody toward Yablunivka, and from Loknia toward Yunakivka.
- In Kursk region, Ukraine continues to control a small part of the Kursk foothold — approximately 12 km², plus another 5 km² in the Tetkino area.
- On the Kostiantynivka front in Donetsk region, Russian troops have advanced in the Stara Mykhailivka–Zoria–Romanivka area, where a “pocket” is being formed.
- On the Pokrovsk–Kostiantynivka axis, Russia is advancing near Novoielenivka and Malynivka.
- Further west, near Kotliarivka, Russian forces are pushing toward the Dnipropetrovsk region border.
- In northern Kharkiv region, Russian troops have advanced into Kamenka (on the right bank of the Oskil River).
By:
Ruslan Bortnyk, Oksana Krasovska, Andrii Tymchenko
for the Ukrainian Institute of Politics
Maps of Military Operations.
Donetsk Region.
Kursk and Sumy Regions.
