War is not a spectator sport.
It does not pause for political ambition or celebrity.
The blood spilt, the cities destroyed, and the lives uprooted are reminders that conflict is measured not in headlines, but in human suffering.
Yet, in recent weeks, a stark illustration of this truth has emerged from the battlefields of Ukraine, where Russia has launched one of the heaviest bombardments in months: 574 drones and 40 missiles striking Ukrainian cities, leaving at least one dead and dozens wounded.
These attacks coincided with US President Donald Trump’s diplomatic overtures to bring an end to the war, a timing that is as telling as it is tragic.
The sequence of events exposes a hard reality: the path to peace requires more than optics, ambition or improvisation. Diplomacy in wartime is a measured, deliberate process.
Power dynamics
It is strategic, it is nuanced, and it is rooted in a clear understanding of power dynamics, leverage and the psychology of the adversary.
History and conventional wisdom teach us that a ceasefire, however fragile, is the necessary foundation of any meaningful negotiation.
Yet, the Alaska summit, which saw Trump fail to secure such an agreement with Vladimir Putin, underscores a painful truth: some actors are not yet prepared to embrace genuine diplomacy, and some leaders may exploit negotiations for political gain rather than pursue a real resolution.
It is becoming increasingly evident that President Trump’s approach lacks the depth required to navigate the labyrinthine complexities of the Ukraine conflict.
From the strategic timing of strikes to the larger geopolitical calculus of NATO, Europe and the United States, every step demands foresight, patience and the ability to anticipate the adversary’s moves.
Diplomacy
Trump’s overtures, while perhaps well-intentioned or politically motivated, demonstrate a dangerous underestimation of the challenge before him.
The Alaska summit exposed a series of miscalculations.
By prioritising headline diplomacy over tactical leverage, Trump inadvertently revealed the limits of his international strategy.
Putin, for his part, has long demonstrated a shrewd understanding of global power structures, using aggression and coercion as tools to extract concessions, manipulate perceptions and strengthen his domestic position.
Engaging such a leader requires more than goodwill or rhetorical appeals; it requires pressure, strategic patience and a credible threat of consequences. Without these, the incentives for continued aggression remain intact.
Broader coalition
For Kyiv, Washington and the broader coalition of Western allies, the implications are sobering.
To hope for a negotiated settlement under the current diplomatic framework is increasingly unrealistic.
Trump’s lack of depth in strategy diminishes the likelihood that Putin will alter his course voluntarily.
The assault on Ukrainian cities is not merely a military tactic; it is a signal, a warning that Russia will not hesitate to escalate when diplomatic overtures appear weak or uninformed.
In such an environment, the cost of relying solely on negotiations without concrete leverage is borne almost entirely by Ukraine and its civilian population.
If history teaches anything, it is that wars are not ended by the absence of dialogue alone, but by the imposition of consequences that shift the balance of power. Decisive action is required, and it must be pragmatic.
Kyiv and its allies must recognise that while diplomacy remains an essential tool, it cannot be divorced from strategic pressure.
This is not a call for recklessness or unbridled escalation; rather, it is an insistence on realism in the face of a calculated and aggressive adversary.
Economic sanctions
One avenue that demands urgent consideration is the use of targeted and substantial economic sanctions against Russia.
Sanctions have long served as a tool to alter state behaviour, particularly when direct military engagement carries prohibitive risks.
Well-designed sanctions can constrain the adversary’s ability to finance aggression, undermine strategic ambitions and signal the seriousness of international resolve.
The United States, leveraging its economic influence, could implement measures that directly impact sectors critical to Russia’s war machinery, energy exports, financial transactions and high-tech imports.
Such sanctions would not merely be punitive; they would serve as a clear and undeniable signal that aggression has costs that cannot be ignored.
Critics may argue that sanctions alone cannot compel a leader like Putin to alter his strategic calculus.
This is true. Sanctions are a lever, not a panacea.
They must be combined with diplomatic coordination, military support for Ukraine, and strategic communication that leaves no ambiguity about the consequences of continued aggression.
Yet, when combined intelligently with these complementary tools, sanctions become far more than economic measures; they become instruments of leverage that shift the dynamics of negotiation in favour of peace rather than prolonging conflict.
It is also critical to understand the limits of charisma-driven diplomacy in crises of this magnitude.
The Alaska summit, while perhaps designed to showcase personal initiative, reveals a fundamental misalignment between style and substance.
International diplomacy
International diplomacy cannot be reduced to photo opportunities or bold pronouncements.
Leaders are measured by outcomes, not optics. In this case, the outcome is clear: without credible pressure, without a coherent strategy and without recognition of the adversary’s motivations, the prospects for a negotiated resolution remain bleak.
Kyiv’s allies must therefore adopt a posture that combines pragmatism with resolve.
This means providing Ukraine with not only defensive military assistance, but also the diplomatic backing and economic leverage necessary to withstand the ongoing Russian offensive.
It means recognising that the path to peace is neither linear nor immediate and that interim measures, such as ceasefires, humanitarian corridors and localised agreements, may serve as stepping stones towards broader resolution.
But these measures will only be effective if undergirded by credible deterrence and strategic clarity.
Neutral factor
Equally important is the recognition that time is not a neutral factor.
Each day that passes without decisive action allows Russia to consolidate gains, refine military tactics and exploit weaknesses in international coordination.
For Ukraine, the cost is measured in human lives and infrastructure destroyed.
For the West, the cost is strategic credibility and the risk of emboldening other actors who may interpret diplomatic hesitation as weakness.
In this context, inaction is itself a choice, a choice that carries profound consequences.
Trump, whether motivated by political considerations or a desire to broker peace, must grapple with these realities.
The tools at his disposal are substantial, but their effectiveness depends entirely on the clarity of strategy and the depth of engagement.
A failure to impose real consequences risks perpetuating the cycle of aggression and reinforcing the very behaviours that have made resolution so elusive.
