The Russia-Ukraine War: Resumption of Kyiv Airstrikes After Ceasefire and the Persistence of a Dual-Track Negotiation-Pressure Strategy

Executive Summary

The three-day halt to airstrikes on Kyiv, ordered by Putin to coincide with the visit of a delegation led by envoys Witkoff and Kushner, resumed immediately after its expiration on September 8, killing at least two people. This follows the Kremlin's established pattern of operating diplomatic and military pressure tracks separately. The move was largely a procedural formality, as the legal basis for the ceasefire was tied directly to the envoys' schedule. The positive assessment of the Putin-Trump phone call, which occurred almost simultaneously with the resumption of strikes, cannot be seen as evidence of substantive progress in negotiations. Meanwhile, Hungary's expulsion of Russian diplomats suggests internal European distrust of the Kremlin's conciliatory messages. The South Korean government and companies should base decisions on committing resources for reconstruction or sanctions relief not on diplomatic announcements, such as summit calls or envoy visits, but on physical indicators like attacks on energy facilities, troop movements on the front lines, and whether trilateral talks are actually convened. Over the next three to six months, the most likely scenario (55% probability) is the continued parallel operation of negotiation and pressure tracks, making a phased and cautious approach rational.

I. Situational Analysis

The Russia-Ukraine War: Analysis of the Resumption of Airstrikes on Kyiv After the Ceasefire

1. Background and Developments

On September 5, President Putin ordered a three-day halt to airstrikes on Kyiv, effective at midnight [9][10]. This measure was timed to coincide with the visit of U.S. envoys Witkoff and Kushner to Moscow [16][17]. Kremlin spokesperson Peskov explained that the decision was linked to the preparation and execution of the U.S. delegation's visit to Kyiv [9]. Ukraine had previously announced its corresponding intention to refrain from airstrikes during the negotiation period [9][16].

This localized ceasefire was not a comprehensive peace agreement but a mechanism to manage the negotiation period [6]. As EAI previously noted, "Russian forces struck Kyiv's airport even on the night before the talks" [2]. The Kremlin's pattern of operating diplomatic and military pressure tracks separately was reconfirmed on this occasion [4][6]. The Witkoff-Kushner delegation held talks with Putin in Moscow for over three hours on September 5 before also visiting Kyiv, but Putin drew a line against a comprehensive ceasefire, describing the negotiation situation as "not simple" [6].

2. Current Situation

The three-day ceasefire ended on September 8. In the early hours of the day, Russian forces struck Kyiv again with missiles and drones, killing at least two people [5][15]. Germany's Deutsche Welle reported that Ukrainian authorities urged residents to take shelter following the airstrike [15]. Italy's Il Sole 24 Ore reported that a Ukrainian drone also struck the Russian city of Saratov, causing infrastructure damage and casualties [3]. President Zelenskyy mentioned the possibility of trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States taking place this month [3].

Almost simultaneously with the end of the ceasefire, Putin and Trump spoke on the phone for over an hour. Kremlin foreign policy aide Ushakov described the call as a "constructive and very frank conversation that took place in a positive atmosphere" [8][11]. The Italian news agency ANSA assessed that the call effectively concluded the Moscow-Kyiv tour by Witkoff and Kushner [12]. During the call, Putin stated that Russia has no plans to attack Europe, and both sides positively assessed the results of the recent envoy visit, according to Ushakov [12].

Separately, the Hungarian government expelled 10 Russian diplomats [7]. Austria's Der Standard reported that this measure coincided with Russia's resumption of airstrikes on Kyiv on Tuesday [7]. Moscow reacted strongly to the move [1].

3. Key Actors and Positions

The Kremlin (Putin, Ushakov, Peskov)is continuing its existing strategy of maintaining a negotiation channel with the United States while simultaneously applying military pressure. The fact that the three-day ceasefire was a management measure timed to the envoys' visit rather than a reflection of mature negotiations demonstrates that the Kremlin is using diplomacy as a strategic tool [2][4]. Ushakov's emphasis on a "constructive and frank conversation" after the call [8] can be read as an attempt to project progress in negotiations both domestically and internationally.

The Trump Administrationhas operated through a private envoy channel involving Witkoff and Kushner and a secret visit by CIA Director Ratcliffe, rather than through regular State Department channels [4][6]. President Trump's comment the day before dispatching the envoys that he had "solved eight wars" [4] suggests that the timing of negotiations may be driven by the U.S. domestic political calendar.

Ukraine (Zelenskyy)is leaving open the possibility of trilateral talks this month [3] but is not ruling out the chance that the war could continue into the winter [6]. The resumption of airstrikes on Kyiv served to signal, both at home and abroad, that physical pressure is continuing regardless of the activation of diplomatic channels.

Hungaryhas shown that a hardline stance toward Russia exists even within the EU by expelling 10 Russian diplomats [7]. As this move contradicts the pro-Russian diplomatic line the Orbán government has usually maintained, it is possible that a separate diplomatic trigger was behind the decision. Moscow immediately protested the measure [1].

4. Key Issues

The pattern of diplomatic channels operating in parallel with military pressure has repeated itself. The resumption of airstrikes reconfirmed that the three-day ceasefire was not a sign of substantive progress in peace negotiations but a management tool for the envoys' visit [2][6]. Putin's statement during his call with Trump that Russia has "no plans to attack Europe" [8][12] is difficult to take at face value, as it was made concurrently with the renewed strikes on Kyiv and Hungary's expulsion of diplomats. The gap between optimistic messages from the White House and physical indicators on the ground is once again apparent. Whether trilateral talks materialize and whether attacks on energy and civilian facilities resume will be key indicators for reading the future of negotiations [3][6].

II. In-Depth Analysis

The Russia-Ukraine War: In-Depth Analysis of the Resumption of Airstrikes on Kyiv After the Ceasefire

1. Analysis of Root Causes

The immediate trigger for the resumption of airstrikes was the expiration of the three-day ceasefire. However, to read this simply as the "end of a ceasefire" is to miss the Kremlin's approach to negotiations. This ceasefire was never a comprehensive armistice agreement between Russia and Ukraine. As spokesperson Peskov specified, it was a measure "linked to the preparation and execution" of the Witkoff-Kushner delegation's visit to Kyiv [9]. In other words, the legal basis for the ceasefire was the envoys' schedule itself; once the delegation completed its mission, the justification for maintaining the ceasefire also expired.

This structure shows that the Kremlin is managing its military strike capabilities in coordination with the negotiation schedule. EAI has previously pointed to the "Kremlin's established pattern of operating diplomatic and military pressure tracks separately" [2][4]. The recent resumption of airstrikes is not a repetition of that pattern but an extension of it. This is supported by the fact that Russian forces struck two airports in Kyiv on the night before the Witkoff-Kushner talks in Moscow [2]. From the Kremlin's perspective, conciliatory language at the negotiating table and continued strikes on the battlefield are not a contradiction but a single tactical combination.

The incentive structure on President Trump's side is another part of the root cause. The day before dispatching the envoys, he mentioned that he had already "solved eight wars" [4][6]. This suggests that the timing of negotiations is being driven more by the White House's domestic political calendar—specifically, the need to publicize foreign policy achievements—than by the actual maturity of the situation on the ground in Ukraine [4]. The use of a private envoy channel involving Witkoff and Kushner and a secret visit by CIA Director Ratcliffe, rather than regular State Department channels, fits this same context [6]. Negotiations centered on personal channels that bypass the regular diplomatic bureaucracy can accelerate the announcement of results, but the mechanisms for guaranteeing implementation are relatively weak.

2. Structural Context

Political Structure: The Kremlin's negotiation strategy rests on a dual track that simultaneously pursues two goals: domestic political needs and the improvement of relations with the United States. Aide Ushakov's description of the call as a "constructive and very frank conversation that took place in a positive atmosphere" [8][11] serves as a dual message: domestically, it projects leadership in the negotiations, while in the U.S. relationship, it manages expectations for a normalization of ties. At the same time, Putin's explicit statement that he has no plans to attack Europe [8] can be read as an attempt to ease European wariness of Russia, but its credibility was immediately tested as it coincided with Hungary's expulsion of 10 Russian diplomats [7].

Security Structure: Russian military strikes on the Ukrainian front have never completely ceased, even during periods of negotiation. Even the three-day ceasefire was a measure limited to the single city of Kyiv, and as seen in the Ukrainian drone strike on Saratov, the geographical scope of mutual attacks has not been reduced [3]. This shows that the military structure of the Russia-Ukraine war is not managed by a binary of "complete halt-complete resumption" but through an accumulation of localized, time-bound measures, even during negotiations. The UK's announcement of a £100 million air defense package [15] reaffirms the structural vulnerability of Ukraine's air defense network, which remains dependent on Western support.

Economic Structure: Hungary's expulsion of the diplomats may seem to contradict the conciliatory pro-Russia line the Orbán government has taken within the European Union, but it can also be interpreted as an example of Hungary not completely breaking from EU-NATO solidarity on specific issues. However, the background and specific reasons for this action have not yet been clearly confirmed [7].

3. Historical Precedents and Comparative Cases

This three-day ceasefire and its immediate resumption are an extension of the temporary, localized ceasefires that have been repeated throughout the Russia-Ukraine war, such as the "Easter truces" and "Christmas truces." These precedents generally share a common feature: they were enacted to coincide with specific diplomatic events or symbolic dates and were reversed without any follow-up measures once the event concluded. In this case as well, the fact that the ceasefire's start time (midnight, September 5) and end time (immediately after the envoys' tour) aligned perfectly with the delegation's schedule supports the assessment that the ceasefire functioned more as stage management for a diplomatic event than as a response to humanitarian or military needs.

The recurring pattern of "constructive calls" between Trump and Putin also has precedents. A previous EAI analysis assessed that the Witkoff-Kushner tour "confirmed the restoration of negotiation channels but failed to produce a substantive breakthrough" [6]. This latest phone call should be viewed within the same framework. The phrase "very frank conversation" reported by Ushakov [8] is rhetoric that has been used repeatedly in previous negotiation phases, and the method of emphasizing the atmosphere without disclosing substantive agreements is a pattern observed in past negotiations.

4. Key Variables Shaping Future Developments

The first variable is whether the Russia-Ukraine-U.S. trilateral talks mentioned by Zelenskyy will actually be convened this month [3]. Amid repeated localized ceasefires, whether these trilateral talks materialize, and if so, the level of the participants, will be an indicator of the substance of the negotiations.

The second variable is whether attacks on civilian facilities, such as energy infrastructure, will resume. Whether the recent airstrikes on Kyiv expand beyond urban targets to power and heating facilities will determine both the humanitarian situation in the winter and the intensity of negotiation pressure.

The third variable is the scope of the fallout from the Moscow-Budapest conflict over the expulsion of Hungarian diplomats. As Moscow has reacted strongly [1], whether this conflict escalates into mutual expulsions or is contained as an isolated incident will indicate the direction of fissures in Europe's policy toward Russia.

The fourth variable is the Trump administration's domestic political calendar. As the pattern of timing envoy dispatches and summit calls to the U.S. domestic schedule rather than to the maturity of negotiations has been reconfirmed [4], the substantive value of any future announced "achievements" must be verified by examining the gap between the announcement and actual implementation.