As President Donald Trump’s efforts to broker a peace settlement in Ukraine falter, Russia is taking dramatic steps up the escalation ladder. On Sunday morning, it launched its largest aerial attack of the war and fired over 800 drones and missiles against Ukrainian cities. Russia’s assault on Kyiv included its first-ever strike on a Ukrainian government building.
Russia’s attack on a building that holds Ukrainian cabinet of ministers meetings had a long buildup. In June 2023, then-Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu warned that Ukrainian Himars and Storm Shadow missile strikes on Crimea would lead to Russian attacks on “decision-making centres” in Kyiv. Shoigu’s statement was interpreted in Ukraine as an explicit threat to its presidential administration and intelligence headquarters.
In November 2024, Putin vowed to deploy Russian Oreshnik missiles against Ukraine’s decision-making centres. The Russian president grimly boasted that a cluster of Oreshnik missiles would have the firepower of a nuclear bomb and argued that these attacks would be retaliations for Ukrainian strikes on Moscow and St Petersburg.
Despite these ominous warnings, Russia refrained from escalatory actions of this scale. This restraint convinced many Western analysts that Putin was issuing empty threats. After all, Russia did not follow through on its threats to intercept Western arms deliveries to Ukraine and repeatedly used nuclear bluffs as a scare tactic.
While this assumption was logical, yesterday’s attack exposed it as an over-optimistic fallacy. There are three reasons why Russia chose to escalate in this manner and at this time.
First, Putin is responding to pressure from pro-war ultranationalists within his coalition. Since the October 2022 Ukrainian attack on Crimea’s Kerch Bridge, pro-war commentators have consistently agitated for strikes on Ukrainian decision-making centres. As battlefield progress stagnates and casualties mount, these calls have intensified.
In June 2025, Rossiya-1 defence commentator Igor Korotchenko argued that long-range missile attacks on Ukrainian decision-making centres could expedite a resolution of the Ukraine War. Korotchenko cited Nato’s strikes on Yugoslavian economic infrastructure during the 1999 Kosovo War as an unlikely precedent for Russia’s actions. As Russia’s economy teeters on the brink of recession and war fatigue mounts amongst younger Russians, Putin needs to ensure that ultranationalists do not defect from his coalition.
Second, Putin sees Trump’s reluctance to punish Russia for prolonging the war as a sign of weakness and is testing the limits of his patience. When the threat of bone-crushing sanctions and sweeping secondary tariffs looked serious, Putin bought time by promising peace breakthroughs in Alaska. Trump’s face-value acceptance of these peace overtures emboldened Putin to further test the boundaries of Western resolve.
On August 21, two Russian cruise missiles hit a Flex Ltd civilian electronics factory in the western Ukrainian city of Mukachevo. Even though this was a direct attack on an American business and a rare strike on the previously safe region of Zakarpattia, Trump did not retaliate.
This hesitation convinced Russia to strike British Council and EU buildings in Kyiv on August 28, and to use GPS jamming against European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plane. When these provocations received little more than a rhetorical response, Russia upped the stakes further by striking a Ukrainian government building.
Third, Putin used this attack to deter Ukraine from further drone strikes against Russian energy infrastructure. Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil terminals have disrupted at least 17 per cent of Russia’s refining capacity or 1.1 million barrels of oil per day.
As the G7 price cap on Russian oil has fallen to $45/barrel, these attacks augment the mounting financial pressure on Russia’s energy giants. And as Russia’s war effort costs between $500 million to $1 billion a day to sustain, Putin is trying to coerce Ukraine into curtailing these drone strikes.
If Trump continues to offer Russia two-week extensions and not follow through on his ultimatums, attacks on Ukrainian government facilities and Western diplomatic institutions could become more frequent. British and European targets are especially vulnerable as the Kremlin is trying to deter Europe from committing to post-war peacekeeper deployments in Ukraine. While Russia’s nuclear brinkmanship has quietened somewhat, the risk of an accidental war with Nato remains as high as ever.
As Putin’s war escalates, Western officials should not appease Putin. They should pursue a peace through strength approach instead. Trump’s vow to implement phase two sanctions against Russia is a much-needed shift in that direction.
As President Donald Trump’s efforts to broker a peace settlement in Ukraine falter, Russia is taking dramatic steps up the escalation ladder. On Sunday morning, it launched its largest aerial attack of the war and fired over 800 drones and missiles against Ukrainian cities. Russia’s assault on Kyiv included its first-ever strike on a Ukrainian government building.
Russia’s attack on a building that holds Ukrainian cabinet of ministers meetings had a long buildup. In June 2023, then-Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu warned that Ukrainian Himars and Storm Shadow missile strikes on Crimea would lead to Russian attacks on “decision-making centres” in Kyiv. Shoigu’s statement was interpreted in Ukraine as an explicit threat to its presidential administration and intelligence headquarters.
In November 2024, Putin vowed to deploy Russian Oreshnik missiles against Ukraine’s decision-making centres. The Russian president grimly boasted that a cluster of Oreshnik missiles would have the firepower of a nuclear bomb and argued that these attacks would be retaliations for Ukrainian strikes on Moscow and St Petersburg.
Despite these ominous warnings, Russia refrained from escalatory actions of this scale. This restraint convinced many Western analysts that Putin was issuing empty threats. After all, Russia did not follow through on its threats to intercept Western arms deliveries to Ukraine and repeatedly used nuclear bluffs as a scare tactic.
While this assumption was logical, yesterday’s attack exposed it as an over-optimistic fallacy. There are three reasons why Russia chose to escalate in this manner and at this time.
First, Putin is responding to pressure from pro-war ultranationalists within his coalition. Since the October 2022 Ukrainian attack on Crimea’s Kerch Bridge, pro-war commentators have consistently agitated for strikes on Ukrainian decision-making centres. As battlefield progress stagnates and casualties mount, these calls have intensified.
In June 2025, Rossiya-1 defence commentator Igor Korotchenko argued that long-range missile attacks on Ukrainian decision-making centres could expedite a resolution of the Ukraine War. Korotchenko cited Nato’s strikes on Yugoslavian economic infrastructure during the 1999 Kosovo War as an unlikely precedent for Russia’s actions. As Russia’s economy teeters on the brink of recession and war fatigue mounts amongst younger Russians, Putin needs to ensure that ultranationalists do not defect from his coalition.
Second, Putin sees Trump’s reluctance to punish Russia for prolonging the war as a sign of weakness and is testing the limits of his patience. When the threat of bone-crushing sanctions and sweeping secondary tariffs looked serious, Putin bought time by promising peace breakthroughs in Alaska. Trump’s face-value acceptance of these peace overtures emboldened Putin to further test the boundaries of Western resolve.
On August 21, two Russian cruise missiles hit a Flex Ltd civilian electronics factory in the western Ukrainian city of Mukachevo. Even though this was a direct attack on an American business and a rare strike on the previously safe region of Zakarpattia, Trump did not retaliate.
This hesitation convinced Russia to strike British Council and EU buildings in Kyiv on August 28, and to use GPS jamming against European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plane. When these provocations received little more than a rhetorical response, Russia upped the stakes further by striking a Ukrainian government building.
Third, Putin used this attack to deter Ukraine from further drone strikes against Russian energy infrastructure. Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil terminals have disrupted at least 17 per cent of Russia’s refining capacity or 1.1 million barrels of oil per day.
As the G7 price cap on Russian oil has fallen to $45/barrel, these attacks augment the mounting financial pressure on Russia’s energy giants. And as Russia’s war effort costs between $500 million to $1 billion a day to sustain, Putin is trying to coerce Ukraine into curtailing these drone strikes.
If Trump continues to offer Russia two-week extensions and not follow through on his ultimatums, attacks on Ukrainian government facilities and Western diplomatic institutions could become more frequent. British and European targets are especially vulnerable as the Kremlin is trying to deter Europe from committing to post-war peacekeeper deployments in Ukraine. While Russia’s nuclear brinkmanship has quietened somewhat, the risk of an accidental war with Nato remains as high as ever.
As Putin’s war escalates, Western officials should not appease Putin. They should pursue a peace through strength approach instead. Trump’s vow to implement phase two sanctions against Russia is a much-needed shift in that direction.