Why Kiev always escalates before talks – and why it won't work this time
This came two days after the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) alleged that Ukrainian forces were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Kharkov region, complete with pre-positioned journalists – supposedly to shape a narrative blaming Moscow.
These incidents are not isolated. They fit into a larger operational and political pattern: each time high-level talks are scheduled Kiev steps up attacks on Russia's border regions. The results are the same: civilian deaths, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and an attempt to create a cloud over the diplomatic process.
The same happened in late May and early June 2025, just before the second round of Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul, when two bridges in Russian territory were blown up. The attacks killed seven civilians and injured over seventy more. In Moscow's interpretation, the timing was too precise to be coincidence – it was about setting a tone of hostility, perhaps provoking Russia into walking away from the talks entirely.
And yet, Moscow did not take the bait. Russian negotiators showed up in Istanbul as planned. For the Kremlin, this has become a point of principle: no matter the provocations, Russia will attend discussions that could bring an end to the conflict – on its own terms.
The upcoming Alaska summit on August 15, 2025, between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, is the latest such opportunity. The alleged Kharkov region provocation and the strikes on Belgorod and Rostov are seen in Moscow as deliberate background noise meant to derail the meeting or at least to sour its atmosphere. But just as in Istanbul, the Kremlin insists it will not be deterred.
For Moscow, attending these talks is about more than optics. It underscores a long-held stance: Russia is prepared to end the conflict, but not at the price of what it views as its core national interests. Walking away now, after years of costly military and political investment, would make little sense. Instead, the aim is to secure a resolution that cements Russia's gains and ends the war on Moscow's terms – not by fighting 'to the last Ukrainian,' but by ensuring that the outcome is final and strategically advantageous.
From the Kremlin's perspective, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky's motives are clear. Accepting a peace that involves territorial concessions would not only be a bitter political defeat – it could spell the end of his political career. More critically, it would remove the emergency powers he has repeatedly invoked since the start of the conflict to cancel elections and prolong his term in office. Those powers have also enabled controversial measures: forced conscriptions, suppression of opposition media, and an intensified crackdown on dissent. These steps have eroded his popularity inside Ukraine, making his hold on power dependent on the continuation of the wartime state of emergency.
If the war ends, so does the legal shield of emergency rule – and with it, his immunity. Zelensky therefore has both political and personal incentives to keep the fighting going, even at significant cost to Ukraine's population.
Key European backers share Zelensky's preference for prolonging the conflict. While EU leaders publicly frame Ukraine as a 'bulwark' against what they call Russian imperial ambitions – claiming that Moscow would move against Western Europe if Ukraine fell – domestic political realities tell another story. Across major EU countries, ruling parties and governments are facing historically low approval ratings. Their grip on power is increasingly tenuous, and a perpetual external threat provides a potent rally-around-the-flag effect.
By keeping Russia framed as the imminent danger, these governments can justify unpopular policies, military spending hikes, and restrictions in the name of national security. They involve themselves in the conflict just enough to signal solidarity with Ukraine – supplying arms, funding, and training – without crossing the threshold into direct combat. For Moscow, this is a political theater that depends on the war continuing; remove the war, and the 'threat' narrative collapses, leaving these governments exposed to electoral defeat.
Against this backdrop, Moscow views the Alaska talks as uniquely promising – not because they will magically end the war in one session, but because of who is not at the table. Neither Zelensky nor the EU will be present. Instead, the discussions will be between Putin and Trump, leaders who, in Moscow's reading, operate from a position of pragmatic realism.
That realism includes acknowledging Russia's current battlefield advantages. Moscow believes it is winning the war, and that any serious settlement will reflect that balance of power. For the Kremlin, the likely outcome is that Ukraine will have to give up some or all of the contested territories – a step Zelensky would fiercely resist, and the EU would likely block outright if they were part of the talks.
Without them, however, such a settlement becomes more feasible. The logic is straightforward: first, Putin and Trump agree on the framework; then, Trump leverages Washington's decisive influence over Kiev to bring Zelensky on board. In Moscow's calculus, this is where Trump's role is crucial. Without American military and financial support, Kiev would not have been able to sustain the war effort for nearly as long as it has.
From the Kremlin's point of view, the recent attacks on Belgorod and Rostov, and the alleged false-flag operation in the Kharkov region, are tactical provocations with a strategic goal: derail the Alaska summit or force Moscow into an overreaction. But history suggests the tactic will fail. Moscow will be at the table in Alaska, just as it was in Istanbul, determined to push for an end to the conflict on terms favorable to Russia.
If the Alaska talks proceed as planned, they could open the way to a negotiated settlement without the spoilers who have the most to lose from peace. In Moscow's eyes, that is precisely why the provocations are happening – and why they must be ignored.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Why Putin and Trump had to talk in person
The meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska is not an end point, but the beginning of a long journey. It will not resolve the turbulence that has gripped humanity – but it matters to everyone. In international politics, there have been few moments when meetings between the leaders of major powers have decided questions of universal importance. This is partly because situations requiring attention at such a level are rare. We are living through one now: since the start of Russia's military operation against Ukraine, Washington has declared its aim to be the 'strategic defeat' of Russia, while Moscow has challenged the West's monopoly over world affairs. Another reason is practical. Leaders of the world's most powerful states do not waste time on problems that can be solved by subordinates. And history shows that even when top-level meetings do occur, they rarely change the overall course of international politics. It is no surprise, then, that the Alaska meeting has been compared to famous encounters from the past – notably the 1807 meeting between the Russian and French emperors on a raft in the Neman River. That summit did not prevent Napoleon from attacking Russia five years later – an act that ultimately brought about his own downfall. Later, at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, Russia was the only power represented by its ruler on a regular basis. Tsar Alexander I insisted on presenting his personal vision for Europe's political structure. It failed to win over the other great powers, who, as Henry Kissinger once noted, preferred to discuss interests rather than ideals. History is full of high-level talks that preceded war rather than preventing it. European monarchs would meet, fail to agree, and then march their armies. Once the fighting ended, their envoys would sit down to negotiate. Everyone understood that 'eternal peace' was usually just a pause before the next conflict. The 2021 Geneva summit between Russia and the US may well be remembered in this way – as a meeting that took place on the eve of confrontation. Both sides left convinced their disputes could not be resolved at the time. In its aftermath, Kiev was armed, sanctions were readied, and Moscow accelerated military-technical preparations. Russia's own history offers parallels. The most famous 'summit' of ancient Rus was the 971 meeting between Prince Svyatoslav and Byzantine Emperor John Tzimiskes, following a peace treaty. According to historian Nikolay Karamzin, they 'parted as friends' – but that did not stop the Byzantines from unleashing the Pechenegs against Svyatoslav on his journey home. In Asia, traditions were different. The status of Chinese and Japanese emperors did not permit meetings with equals; such encounters were legally and culturally impossible. When the modern European 'world order' was created – most famously in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia – it was not through grand encounters of rulers but through years of negotiations among hundreds of envoys. By then, after 30 years of war, all sides were too exhausted to continue fighting. That exhaustion made it possible to agree on a comprehensive set of rules for relations between states. Seen in this historical light, top-level summits are exceedingly rare, and those that produce fundamental change are rarer still. The tradition of two leaders speaking on behalf of the entire global system is a product of the Cold War, when Moscow and Washington alone had the ability to destroy or save the world. Even if Roman and Chinese emperors had met in the third century, it would not have transformed the fate of the world. The great empires of antiquity could not conquer the planet in a single war with each other. Russia – as the USSR before it – and the United States can. In the last three years, they have often stood on the brink of a path from which there would be no return. This is why Alaska matters, even if it does not yield a breakthrough. Summits of this kind are a creation of the nuclear age. They cannot be treated as just another bilateral meeting between important states. The very fact of direct negotiations is a measure of how close or far we are from catastrophe. The United States will arrive at the summit as the leader of a Western bloc whose members – even nuclear powers such as Britain and France – defer to Washington on strategic questions. Russia, for its part, will be watched closely by what is often called the 'global majority': dozens of states across Asia, Africa, and Latin America that resent Western dominance but cannot overturn it alone. These countries know that US mediation in local conflicts will not change the fact that the structure of that dominance remains unjust. Could Alaska lay the foundation for a new international order? Probably not. The very concept of a fixed 'order' is fading. Any order requires an enforcing power – and none exists today. The world is moving toward greater fluidity, to the frustration of those who crave neat arrangements and predictable futures. Even if a new balance of power emerges, it will not come from one meeting. The wartime summits of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin are not a fair comparison. Those were preceded by the most destructive battles in human history. Fortunately, we are not in that situation now. The likely outcome in Alaska is the start of a long and difficult process, rather than an immediate settlement. But it is still of fundamental importance. In today's world, only two states possess vast nuclear arsenals capable of ending human civilization. This alone means that the leaders of Russia and the United States have no more important duty than to speak directly to one another – especially when they are, for now, the only invincible powers at the edge of the article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Putin-Trump meeting seeks to settle unfinished Cold War business
It has been a long time since a diplomatic event drew as much global attention as Friday's meeting between the Russian and US presidents in Alaska. In terms of its significance for the international balance, it is comparable only to the negotiations on German reunification 35 years ago. That process laid the foundations for political developments in the decades that followed. The Alaska talks could prove a similar milestone – not just for the Ukraine conflict, but for the principles on which a broader settlement between the world's leading powers might be reached. Ukraine has become the most visible arena for historical shifts that go far beyond its borders. But if the German analogy holds, no one should expect a breakthrough from a single meeting. The marathon of high-level diplomacy in 1990 lasted many months, and the mood then was far less acute and far more optimistic than today. The dense fog of leaks and speculation surrounding Alaska underlines its importance. Much of this 'white noise' comes from two sources: commentators eager to sound informed, and political actors seeking to shape public opinion. In reality, the substantive preparation for the talks appears to have little to do with the propaganda framing. This is why official announcements so often catch outside observers by surprise. That may be a good sign. In recent decades, especially in Europe, diplomacy has often been accompanied by a steady drip of confidential details to the press – a habit that may serve tactical purposes but rarely produces lasting results. In this case, it is better to wait for the outcome, or the lack of one, without giving in to the temptation to guess what will happen behind closed doors. There is also a broader backdrop that cannot be ignored: the shifts in the global order catalyzed by the Ukraine crisis, though not caused by it. For years, I have been skeptical of claims that the world is dividing neatly into two opposing camps – 'the West' versus 'the rest.' Economic interdependence remains too deep for even sharp political and military conflicts to sever ties entirely. Yet contradictions between these blocs are growing, and they are increasingly material rather than ideological. A key trigger was US President Donald Trump's recent attempt to pressure the largest states of the so-called 'global majority' – China, India, Brazil, and South Africa – to fall in line with Washington's instructions. The old liberal order promised universality and some benefits to participants. Now, purely American mercantile interests dominate. As before, Washington dresses its demands in political justifications – criticizing Brazil and South Africa over their treatment of the opposition, or attacking India and China over their ties with Moscow. But the inconsistencies are obvious. Trump, unlike his predecessors, prefers tariffs to sanctions. Tariffs are an explicitly economic tool, but they are now being wielded for political ends. The attempt has failed to produce the outcome the White House wanted. The US president is used to allies compromising to preserve their relationship with Washington. BRICS countries, too, have often avoided confrontation for the sake of their own economic interests. But the bluntness of the American push this time forced them to stiffen their positions. Ukraine, in itself, has little to do with this shift – but it is the issue commanding global political attention. Ahead of the Alaska summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been personally briefing BRICS and other key partners on the preparations. They are taking note, and in many cases expressing support for the process. Across the Atlantic, consultations are equally intense, though marked by unease and limited trust. Western Europe's anxiety that Trump might 'cut a deal' with Putin is telling. The world is still dividing into groups, but while one group is moving towards greater coordination, the other is growing less cohesive. Even if Alaska produces serious discussions, there is no guarantee it will deliver peace. It may not even be the final meeting. What is troubling is that the public debate remains focused on territorial carve-ups – who gets what, and what is given in exchange. This misses the core issue. The acute phase of the Ukraine crisis was not triggered by a hunger for territorial expansion. It began when Moscow challenged the security order that emerged after the Cold War – an order built on the open-ended enlargement of NATO as the supposed guarantor of European stability. This is where the German reunification analogy returns. That plan, while it resolved a territorial question, also enshrined the political principles that shaped the post-Cold War system. Those same principles, and the imbalance they created between Moscow and Washington, lay at the root of the 2022 escalation. Borders and territories are only part of the picture. The real question is the basis for peaceful coexistence going forward. In 1990, a settlement between East and West created the architecture of European security. But the way the Cold War ended – and the failure to give Moscow an equal stake – planted the seeds of today's confrontation. In that sense, the Alaska meeting is an attempt to resolve unfinished business from the past. Without a final settlement of this historic imbalance, it will be impossible to create a stable new system of relations, not just between Russia and the West but globally. The frequency of Putin's meetings with BRICS leaders shows that Moscow understands this reality. Whether Washington does remains to be article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
UN rejects parallel government in Sudan
The UN Security Council has rejected the announcement by Sudan's Rapid Support Forces (RSF) regarding the formation of a parallel governing authority in territories under their control. Since April 2023, Sudan has been gripped by fierce fighting between the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), with both factions vying for control amid a stalled transition to civilian rule. 'The members of the Security Council unequivocally reaffirmed their unwavering commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sudan,' the UN's press service reported on Wednesday. The UN called on both sides 'to resume talks to reach a lasting ceasefire and create the necessary conditions for a political resolution on the conflict.' The statement noted Resolution 2736 (2024), which demands that the RSF lift its siege of El Fasher and calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities in and around the city, where famine and severe food insecurity are at risk of spreading rapidly. Wednesday's announcement comes after a Sudanese political bloc, allied with the RSF, declared a parallel government in July. The Sudan Founding Alliance named RSF chief General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo as chairman of a 15-member presidential council that includes regional governors. Last month, the African Union, Arab League, and Saudi Arabia also condemned the RSF for declaring a rival government. The African Union's Peace and Security Council warned the move could deepen Sudan's two-year civil war between the RSF and the national army, urging states and the international community not to recognize the parallel administration. The SAF has denounced the 'so-called militia government' as a ploy by the RSF to deceive its allies, while its true intent is to seize power for personal gain. The Arab League called the move a 'blatant challenge' to the Sudanese people's will and an attempt to impose a fait accompli by force, warning it posed a serious threat to regional stability.
