Unable to achieve significant gains on the battlefield, Russia has once again turned to terrorizing Ukraine’s civilian population. It launched a massive attack on Kyiv and the surrounding region using drones and ballistic missiles. According to the latest reports, 34 people were injured and ten were killed.
Meanwhile, Washington continues to debate how the war in Ukraine should end. Some call for immediate negotiations, while others argue that support for Kyiv must continue until a decisive outcome is achieved on the battlefield. But the central question is not whether negotiations are needed at all. The real question is this: will they begin when Russia is in a position of strength, or when it is in a position of weakness?
Contrary to what Russian President Vladimir Putin regularly claims in his public appearances about newly captured territories and the supposedly successful advance of the Russian army, the reality looks far more complicated. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently noted that Russia is now losing in three weeks as many soldiers as the Soviet Union lost during ten years of war in Afghanistan. This fact alone speaks volumes about the scale of the crisis the Kremlin is trying to conceal from its own population.
To this must be added unprecedented sanctions, disconnection from international financial systems, hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen assets, a growing budget deficit, and Russia’s increasing dependence on China. Russia entered the war as one of the world’s most influential powers. Today, it increasingly resembles a country that has lost its strategic independence and is struggling not only to win a war but also to preserve its own economic stability.
This situation matters not only for Ukraine. It directly affects American interests. For the United States, the outcome of the war will determine more than the future of Eastern Europe. It will demonstrate to America’s allies around the world whether Washington remains capable of defending the international order against revisionist powers. That is why the war in Ukraine has long ceased to be a regional conflict and has become a global test of American leadership.
Today, Ukraine is striking Russia where the Kremlin feels most vulnerable. Ukrainian drones regularly attack oil refineries, military airfields, fuel depots, and defense industry facilities. This means more than material damage. It means reduced production, declining revenues, logistical disruptions, and growing anxiety within Russia itself.
For years, Russian authorities convinced their citizens that the war had little impact on their daily lives. Today, that illusion is collapsing. Airports regularly suspend operations because of drone threats. Passengers spend hours stranded without being able to leave their cities. Businesses face rising costs and labor shortages. Small and medium-sized enterprises are increasingly closing as demand falls and taxes rise.
At the same time, Russia’s territorial gains remain limited. During four and a half years of war, the Kremlin has failed to achieve any of its original strategic objectives. Kyiv was not captured. The Ukrainian state was not destroyed. The Western coalition did not collapse. Moreover, Russian officials’ repeated claims of capturing settlements that later turned out to be either long abandoned or entirely nonexistent have become a source of ridicule even among many Russians themselves.
That is why talk of negotiations has become increasingly frequent. Signals about possible new diplomatic formats are emerging from different directions. Russian officials speak about contacts with European countries. Discussions have begun about so-called “sectoral ceasefires,” under which attacks on specific categories of infrastructure would be suspended. The Kremlin is trying to create the impression that it is ready for compromise.
President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly stated his desire to end the war, may view this as an opportunity for a diplomatic breakthrough. However, it is important that the American administration does not repeat past mistakes. Experience from recent years demonstrates that Russia views ceasefires not as a path to peace but as a tool for regrouping its forces.
For the Kremlin, any pause means an opportunity to repair damaged refineries, accumulate new missiles, expand drone production, and replenish exhausted military reserves. That is why negotiations without additional pressure may not bring peace closer but merely postpone the next phase of the war.
Trump has a rare opportunity to use Russia’s current weakness to achieve a real result. Instead of rushing toward compromises, Washington could strengthen sanctions on Russia’s energy sector, increase support for Ukraine’s air defenses, and expand the delivery of technologies that allow Ukraine to maintain the strategic initiative.
This also has practical significance for American voters. The longer Russia retains the ability to finance the war, the longer global instability will persist. Instability means higher energy prices, greater risks to international trade, and additional pressure on America’s European allies. Conversely, ending the war on terms that prevent future aggression would strengthen America’s position and reduce the need for future expenditures aimed at containing the Kremlin.
Ukraine has already demonstrated that it is capable of defending itself. The question now is whether the West is prepared to take advantage of a moment when Russia is showing its greatest vulnerability since the beginning of the full-scale war.
UKRAINE’S NEW CIVILIAN BATTLEFIELD: SURVIVING FPV DRONE ATTACKS
If Trump truly wants to go down in history as a leader who brought peace, he should remember a simple rule. The best negotiations begin not when the aggressor feels strong but when the aggressor realizes it can no longer win.
Today, Russia is far closer to that realization than the Kremlin is willing to acknowledge publicly. That is why America should not ease the pressure but increase it. Only then can negotiations become a path to peace rather than merely another pause before a new war.
Igor Bondar is a Ukrainian writer and columnist based in Kharkiv. He has been publishing regularly for over four years, with a focus on culture, politics, and the intersection of war and society. His columns appear in major Scandinavian newspapers, including Aftenposten and Klassekampen, where he writes about Ukraine’s cultural and political landscape during wartime.