Putin’s Word, Trump’s Shrug, and the Next Strike – Reality-Detached Scenarios

Washington responds soberly, almost routinely. The president shows no surprise that Russia has resumed its attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. This comes after Vladimir Putin had previously pledged to refrain from attacking Kyiv and other cities for a week – in the middle of a period of bitter cold. That pledge did not even last until the following night. In Ukraine, words were once again followed by fire. A large-scale attack struck the country, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated, once again targeting power and supply networks. The agreement to pause attacks on energy infrastructure thus proved worthless. While new talks about a possible end to the war were being prepared, Moscow spoke with missiles.

From the White House it was said that one was unfortunately not surprised by this move. The statement sounds like a casual observation rather than a political rupture. It makes clear how low expectations have become, even when formal commitments are made. Trust no longer plays a role in this situation.

I called Putin, and he agreed. They have the same cold wave there as we do, maybe a little different, because it is quite far away. Ukraine is a very cold country, much colder than ours. I asked him not to shoot for a week, and he agreed. (January 29, 2026)

Despite this, talks are supposed to continue. Meetings with Russian and Ukrainian representatives are planned in Abu Dhabi. Taking part are special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. From the president’s circle it is said that both have already achieved things in the Middle East that were previously considered impossible. Now they are to attempt something similar for the war between Russia and Ukraine. While negotiations proceed, for the people in Ukraine there remains, for now, only the cold – and the next impact.

At present, Western states and Ukraine are said to have agreed on a graduated concept for how a possible ceasefire with Russia could be militarily secured. The plan provides for a coordinated response should Moscow violate such an agreement. According to reports, the model was already discussed in December and January between representatives from Kyiv, Europe, and the United States.

At the core of the considerations is a three-stage escalation scheme. In the first 24 hours after a violation, the response would initially be diplomatic, supported by measures from the Ukrainian armed forces. If the attacks continue, units of a so-called coalition of the willing, including European states, the United Kingdom, and other partners, would intervene within 24 to 72 hours. Only after 72 hours would the concept envision a coordinated military response involving the United States. However, these are explicitly theoretical plans and, when viewed against reality, detached from it.

There is no binding ceasefire in place, and Russia has so far refused any form of binding commitments. The Kremlin also categorically rejects the presence of Western troops in Ukraine and maintains far-reaching demands that stand in the way of a realistic settlement. Yet given Russia’s behavior to date and the continued attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, the discussed security guarantees currently appear less like a realistic roadmap and more like a misreading of reality.