Putin’s nuclear drills, a postponed summit and the widening war of attrition
For two leaders who flirted with the idea of a quick, high-stakes meeting, the choreography of power this week looked less like summit diplomacy than a careful mutual stand-off. Moscow staged a large-scale training exercise that it said included intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States, and Washington announced a pause in plans for a second Vladimir Putin–Donald Trump summit as diplomacy over Ukraine staggered back into uncertainty.
- Advertisement -
The message was unmistakable: when the war in Ukraine reaches a diplomatic impasse, both sides reach for instruments that remind rivals of the stakes. Russia’s military released footage of General Valery Gerasimov briefing President Putin on drills that, officials said, involved missiles launched from land, sea and air. Kremlin spokespeople framed the exercise as routine preparedness; to Kyiv and Western capitals, it looked like calibrated signalling at a moment of heightened tension.
Nuclear posturing at a moment of diplomatic doubt
Throughout the conflict, Mr. Putin has on occasion underscored Russia’s nuclear capability — a chilly reminder to Kyiv and its backers that any escalation carries existential warning lights. NATO, for its part, has also been running deterrence exercises this month. The optics are stark: two blocs rehearsing last-resort capabilities as the day-to-day fighting carries on in Ukraine’s cities and countryside.
“The dates haven’t been set yet, but thorough preparation is needed before then, and that takes time,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters when asked about the postponed summit. The White House said Mr. Trump had decided he “did not want to have a wasted meeting.” For now, U.S. officials said, focus will shift to the president’s planned trip to Asia.
Behind the rhetoric lies a substantive clash over the fundamentals of any negotiated settlement. Reuters reported that Moscow reiterated demands that would require Ukraine to cede control of the south-eastern Donbas region — a position Kyiv rejects outright and one that sheds light on why a quick handshake across the Hungarian table seemed implausible.
Arms, aircraft and the politics of supply
As diplomatic channels sputter, the material side of the conflict is accelerating. Sweden this week signed a letter of intent to export Saab Gripen fighter jets to Ukraine; President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, standing beside Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Saab representatives, said Kyiv had “started the work to obtain Gripens” and expected a contract for “no less than 100 such jets.” He expressed the ambition to begin using them next year.
The image — a Ukrainian president walking past a Swedish-built fighter — captured a larger dynamic. European governments, keen to posture in defence of Ukraine and mindful of the political fallout of perceived inaction, have been increasing military support even as they navigate domestic pressures to limit escalation. Defence manufacturers have seen share prices rise on the expectation of continued and expanded demand.
At the same time, EU leaders are moving toward a controversial proposal to use frozen Russian assets to extend a $163 billion loan to Ukraine — a plan Moscow calls theft. Kyiv insists it must be free to spend any funds how it sees fit and not be pushed toward exclusive suppliers.
On the ground: missiles, power cuts and the looming winter
While capitals negotiate, civilians are enduring the consequences. Overnight missile strikes were reported on both sides of the front, with Ukrainian officials saying Russian attacks killed six people, including two children, in Kyiv and nearby areas and caused power outages across the country. Ukraine’s military said it had used Franco-British Storm Shadow missiles to strike a chemical plant in Russia’s Bryansk region.
Kyiv’s foreign minister Andrii Sybiha urged partners to step up “additional energy support” to stave off a humanitarian crisis as winter approaches — a reminder that the war has long since transcended the immediate battlefield to touch utilities, food supplies and civilians’ ability to endure another cold season.
Reading the tea leaves: what the manoeuvres mean for global politics
This volatile combination of nuclear signalling, delayed summitry and stepped-up arming of Kyiv reflects several broader currents. First, great-power diplomacy is increasingly transactional and mediated by domestic politics and electoral calendars. Mr. Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to end the war, but his rhetoric has been inconsistent; his insistence on not holding “a wasted meeting” mirrors Moscow’s insistence on precise preconditions for talks.
Second, the growth of military-industrial profit from prolonged conflict is a global trend with political repercussions. European defence stocks and export deals — from Gripens to Storm Shadows — tie industry fortunes to the length of the war and make a rapid, negotiated end less likely without heavy political will.
Third, the weaponization of frozen assets into loans or economic leverage risks setting new precedents for how democracies punish or deter aggression. Moscow’s threat to retaliate against any seizure of assets will complicate European calculations about how to finance Ukraine without igniting a broader economic confrontation.
And finally, the renewed display of nuclear capability should trouble more than immediate neighbours. Nuclear signalling has a corrosive effect on crisis stability; it raises the cost of miscalculation and reduces the room for quiet diplomacy. What happens when major powers treat nuclear posturing as routine political theatre? How do smaller states navigate a landscape where their security becomes the bargaining chip of larger powers?
There are no easy answers. The next phase of this conflict will be shaped as much by domestic politics in Washington, Moscow and across Europe as by any battlefield developments. For Kyiv, the imperative is immediate: more electricity, more air defence, and more credible guarantees that support will not ebb as winter and the next phase of fighting approach.
For the rest of the world, the lesson is grim and familiar — wars of attrition have long legs, and when they intersect with grand diplomacy and nuclear rhetoric, they test the resilience of institutions built to manage crises. Can traditional alliances hold, and can diplomacy be rescued from the noise of maximalist demands and electoral posturing? The coming weeks may tell.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
