Moscow Center, which writes: “Nuclear exercises are the alternative language of Russian diplomacy. A form of bargaining from a position of strength in conditions where political options have become limited.”

On the American side, Brookings has warned with a different perspective that Trump’s proposal to stop the war at the current lines would, “in practice, mean recognizing Russia’s military gains.” From Brookings’ perspective, such an agreement might lead to a temporary end to the conflict, but it would be an “unstable peace” that would merely give Russia an opportunity to rebuild its forces.

In contrast, the Quincy Institute has welcomed Trump’s proposal, writing: “There is no longer a military solution. Accepting the current contact lines could be a starting point for a lasting ceasefire.”

In summary, recent developments point to three simultaneous trends: first, the clear return of nuclear logic to global politics; second, the intensification of limited, targeted conflicts on Russian and Ukrainian soil; and third, a diplomatic stalemate that even Washington’s political will has been unable to break.

Under such conditions, the outlook for the Ukraine war in the fall of 2025 is more ambiguous than ever. If the Trump-Putin meeting eventually takes place, it might open the path for new negotiations. But if the current suspension continues, the world will face a situation in which every missile test or nuclear exercise itself becomes a tool for negotiation or threat. In the words of prominent Russian analyst Fyodor Lukyanov, “Russia’s exercises today are, in fact, missile diplomacy – a method of speaking to a world that does not listen to the language of traditional diplomacy.”