In a dramatic week for international diplomacy, the prospects for peace in Ukraine have been thrust back into the global spotlight, with high-stakes phone calls, shifting alliances, and the lingering threat of escalation. The confluence of a Middle East ceasefire, renewed U.S. engagement, and relentless Russian attacks has created a charged atmosphere, where hopes for an end to the war in Ukraine hang in the balance.
This renewed momentum began with a phone call on October 11, 2025, between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump. As reported by multiple outlets, including Axios and the Kyiv Independent, Zelensky congratulated Trump on brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas—a deal widely described as a “magnificent achievement” and “an outstanding achievement” by Zelensky himself. The Ukrainian leader’s optimism was palpable: “If a war can be stopped in one region, then surely other wars can be stopped as well—including the Russian war,” he wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
The war in Ukraine, now in its fourth year, has left hundreds of thousands dead—soldiers and civilians alike. Yet, despite the heavy toll, peace has remained elusive. Trump’s efforts to restart negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including a historic summit in Alaska earlier this summer, have so far failed to yield a breakthrough. According to ARA, reports ahead of that Alaska meeting suggested Putin might accept an air truce or freeze the front line, and Moscow even hinted that a U.S. offer—though details were kept under wraps—was reasonable. But as the weeks passed, those hopes faded. The ultimatum Trump issued to Putin to stop the war was set to expire, and the front lines in Ukraine remained as volatile as ever.
Meanwhile, the world’s attention has largely shifted to the Middle East. The U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Gaza, which brought a rare day of calm after two years of violence, dominated headlines and diplomatic bandwidth. According to Interfax-Ukraine, Zelensky warned that Putin was “obviously taking advantage of the moment when the world is now paying almost all its attention to the possibility of establishing peace in the Middle East.” In a video address, he accused Russia of intensifying its attacks on Ukraine precisely as global focus waned: “This is a new record of Russian meanness—to intensify a terrorist strike at such a moment. To strike precisely at the lives of our people.”
The scale of these attacks has been staggering. On the night of October 10-11, Russian forces launched nearly 500 drones in waves, including about 200 Shahed drones and 32 ballistic missiles, many of which targeted Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. The head of Ukraine’s army, Oleksandr Syrskyi, reported that while Ukrainian defenses currently offer a 74% effectiveness rate, sustaining this level of protection is becoming increasingly difficult under such relentless barrages. “There can only be one response to this,” Zelensky insisted. “It is more force to protect our critical infrastructure. We must put more pressure on Russia so they are held fully accountable for their actions. Increased sanctions are necessary.”
In his call with Trump, Zelensky did not mince words about the challenges Ukraine faces. He informed the U.S. president about the latest Russian attacks on the country’s energy system and expressed gratitude for Trump’s “willingness to support us in air defense.” The two leaders discussed “concrete agreements” to bolster Kyiv’s air defense capabilities, with Zelensky noting, “There are good options and solid ideas on how to truly strengthen us.”
But perhaps the most consequential topic on the table was the possible delivery of U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine—a move with the potential to dramatically alter the conflict’s trajectory. As Axios reported, the Tomahawk missiles, capable of striking targets up to 2,500 kilometers away, would be the deadliest Western weaponry supplied to Ukraine so far. Their range would allow Kyiv to target Russian cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, a prospect that has drawn sharp warnings from the Kremlin. Putin has labeled the supply of such missiles a “red line” and warned that it would “ruin relations” between Russia and the United States. The use of these weapons would almost certainly require U.S. intelligence support, further blurring the line between indirect aid and direct involvement.
This isn’t the first time the U.S. has faced controversy over arming Ukraine. Under President Joe Biden, Washington authorized the use of ATACMS missiles—though their 300-kilometer range pales in comparison to the Tomahawk. Previous deliveries of HIMARS rocket systems, F-16 fighter jets, and Abrams tanks all sparked Russian rhetoric about escalation, but none provoked a major response from Moscow. Whether Tomahawks would cross a threshold remains an open—and dangerous—question.
Despite these risks, there is a sense among international observers that only bold action, or a dramatic shift in circumstances, will revive peace talks. Jenny Mathers, a lecturer in international politics at Aberystwyth University, told the Kyiv Independent, “Talks are dead unless something dramatic happens—that might be Trump turning his attention back to Ukraine, or things changing on the ground that change the calculations by either Russia or Ukraine or both.” She notes that Moscow currently believes it has more to gain by continuing its attacks, while Kyiv, though open to talks, cannot afford to stop resisting or accede to Russian demands that would render a ceasefire meaningless.
For his part, Trump has signaled a shift in his approach. In a late September post on Truth Social, he wrote, “After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.” This statement suggests a move closer to Kyiv’s position, which has consistently ruled out any deal that would cede Ukrainian territory to Russia.
Yet, the Kremlin remains unmoved. As ARA reported, Moscow’s stance is that it currently benefits more from pressing its military advantage than from entering peace talks. For any diplomatic breakthrough to happen, Zelensky stressed, “real diplomacy” would require readiness from Russia’s side and could only be achieved “through strength.”
With the world’s gaze flickering between Gaza and Kyiv, and the specter of escalation looming over every new weapons shipment, the fate of Ukraine’s peace process remains uncertain. But as the dust settles on one ceasefire, the question persists: can the momentum for peace in the Middle East inspire a similar breakthrough in Eastern Europe? For now, the answer depends on the resolve of leaders—and the resilience of those still caught in the crossfire.