OP-ED: Yaroslavl Burns While Putin Negotiates with Trump from Afar

Seven confirmed dead, according to The Telegraph; the death toll could rise

While Ukraine was striking Yaroslavl, the Ukrainian capital itself came under a massive attack: at least seven people were killed and dozens wounded in a Russian bombing of Kyiv, according to The Telegraph. This strike comes just a few days after a previous attack last Thursday that had already left 31 dead—the deadliest attack of the year in the Ukrainian capital.

President Zelensky explicitly condemned the timing of this new wave of attacks: “Intelligence indicates once again that the Russians are preparing another massive strike. This is typical of Putin: right after U.S. Independence Day and before the NATO summit in Ankara,” he said, according to remarks reported by The Telegraph.

The fact that Russia chose this particular week to intensify its strikes on Kyiv confirms, once again, that Putin views diplomacy and war as two levers of a single balance of power, never as separate spheres.

A rhetorical move that lays bare Putin’s logic

In a striking rhetorical move, Zelensky issued a direct challenge to the Russian president regarding the town of Kostyantynivka, which Russian troops recently claimed to have captured: “If Kostyantynivka were under Russian control, then perhaps Putin would have no problem meeting me there to find a diplomatic path to end this war once and for all,” he said, according to The Telegraph.

This statement highlights a contradiction that Zelensky seeks to expose publicly: Putin was filmed the previous Friday being informed by his troops of the capture of Kostyantynivka, while, according to Kyiv, continuing to avoid any direct meeting that could actually advance a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

This challenge issued by Zelensky is not a mere publicity stunt: it is a clever way of demonstrating, by reductio ad absurdum, that Russia’s territorial claims and Putin’s professed desire for peace are difficult to reconcile.

Ushakov Describes a “Confident” Russian Move

Kremlin foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov described the weekend phone call between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump as “entirely constructive,” noting that “the U.S. president once again confirmed his willingness to work toward a swift end to the fighting,” according to remarks reported by The Telegraph. Ushakov added that Putin had provided Trump with an update on the front lines, describing “the actual situation on the battlefield, where Russian armed forces are advancing confidently, liberating one town after another.”

This rhetoric of “liberation” and confident advancement, repeated uncritically by the Kremlin spokesperson, illustrates once again how Moscow seeks to portray its invasion of Ukraine as a legitimate operation to reclaim territory rather than what it actually is: an ongoing war of aggression against a sovereign country.

To call the capture of Ukrainian cities destroyed by months of bombardment “liberation” is a misuse of language that Western diplomacy should never allow to pass without challenging it head-on, even in a negotiating context.

Nearly 11,000 soldiers stationed in the Kursk Oblast

While Western diplomats are focused on the NATO summit and the phone calls between Trump and Putin, another front remains largely overlooked: According to reports from the Yonhap News Agency, citing South Korea’s National Intelligence Service, approximately 11,000 North Korean soldiers—including 10,000 combat troops and 1,000 engineers—were stationed in Russia’s Kursk Oblast in early 2026, according to the Kyiv Independent.

These North Korean troops suffered approximately 6,000 casualties—killed or wounded—a figure corroborated by both South Korean intelligence and British defense intelligence, according to the same sources. Despite these considerable losses, South Korean intelligence notes that the North Korean military has acquired “modern combat tactics” and battlefield data through this direct experience alongside Russian forces.

The fact that 11,000 North Korean soldiers are learning modern warfare on Russian soil alongside Moscow is not a minor detail of this conflict: it is proof that North Korea is turning this war into an open-air military laboratory, at the expense of the security of the entire Indo-Pacific region.

Military Support Continues Despite Internal Political Tensions

Despite regular phone calls between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, the U.S. administration has maintained its concrete military support for Ukraine—a decision that several Western defense analysts interpret as evidence that Washington clearly distinguishes between Trump’s diplomatic rhetoric and the operational reality on the ground. The 70-billion-euro aid package discussed in Ankara confirms this continuity of Western support, regardless of telephone exchanges with Moscow.

This two-track approach—diplomatic on one hand and military on the other—illustrates a broader strategic interpretation of the U.S. position: talking to Putin does not, for the time being, mean slowing down concrete support for Kyiv, a crucial nuance that some Western commentators tend to downplay in their analysis of Trump-Putin relations.

The fact that Trump is described by some Western observers as a necessary evil does not preclude the recognition that, in concrete military terms, his administration has continued to provide Ukraine with what it needs, regardless of his sometimes disconcerting diplomatic rhetoric toward Moscow.

A convergence of authoritarian regimes documented since 2022

Beyond North Korea alone, China and Iran are closely monitoring the course of this conflict, each drawing lessons applicable to its own regional ambitions. Iran, a known supplier of Shahed drones to Russia, and China, Moscow’s main economic partner in the face of Western sanctions, are closely observing the West’s actual ability to sustain its support for Ukraine over the long term.

This convergence of authoritarian regimes in support of Russia—documented since the start of the 2022 invasion—transforms this war into a test of resilience for the entire rules-based international order, far beyond the Ukrainian theater alone.

Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang are not supporting Russia out of mere ideological solidarity: together, they are testing the West’s true resolve in the face of territorial aggression—a lesson they could apply elsewhere if the West falters here.

What this week will need to confirm in the coming days

It will be up to the days following the NATO summit to confirm whether the announcements of financial and military support for Ukraine will translate into concrete action—such as accelerated deliveries, particularly of Patriot systems—or whether they will remain, as has too often been the case in the past, diplomatic commitments whose implementation drags on for months.

A week so packed with airstrikes, diplomacy, and territorial claims never really comes to a clean close: it always leaves one question unanswered—whether the words spoken in Ankara will translate into concrete actions on the ground in Ukraine.

Strikes, Diplomacy, and Parallel Alliances, All on a Single Timeline

This week, from July 5 to 8, 2026, condenses, in just a few days, the essence of this war’s dynamics: a Ukraine that continues to methodically strike at Russian energy infrastructure, a Russia that is intensifying its bombardment of Kyiv even as it negotiates with Washington, and a NATO summit in Ankara that must decide whether Western aid to Ukraine will accelerate or continue to be doled out in small increments.

Finally, the presence of North Korean troops in the Kursk Oblast serves as a reminder that this war is no longer just between Ukraine and Russia, but has become a focal point for all authoritarian regimes that are watching, testing, and learning—at the expense of Ukrainian lives and the stability of the international order.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist