Border Strikes and Political Calculus: Why Moscow Won’t Be Deterred from the Alaska Summit

August 14, 2025 – Russian officials have accused Ukraine of launching drone strikes on the border cities of Belgorod and Rostov-on-Don, leaving multiple civilians dead and injured. In Rostov, an apartment building was hit, resulting in more than a dozen casualties, while in Belgorod three people were wounded when a drone struck a car in the city center.

The attacks came just two days after Russia’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) claimed that Ukrainian forces were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Kharkov region, allegedly with journalists pre-positioned to frame Moscow as the aggressor. For the Kremlin, these incidents form part of a familiar pattern: each time high-level negotiations loom, Kyiv intensifies strikes on Russian border regions. The aim, Moscow believes, is to undermine the diplomatic atmosphere and pressure Russia into withdrawing from talks.

A Pattern of Provocation
Similar events occurred in late May and early June 2025, just before the second round of Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul, when two bridges inside Russian territory were destroyed. Those attacks killed seven civilians and injured more than seventy. Moscow has consistently argued that such timing is deliberate – calculated to create hostility and sabotage negotiations.

Yet Russia did not walk away then, and it will not walk away now. Attending peace talks, Kremlin officials insist, is a matter of principle. Even under fire, Moscow is determined to present itself as ready to end the conflict – but only on terms that protect what it calls its “core national interests.”

The Alaska Meeting
The latest test comes with the upcoming August 15, 2025 summit in Alaska between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Russian officials see the Belgorod and Rostov strikes, as well as the alleged Kharkov false-flag plan, as deliberate attempts to sour the meeting. Nevertheless, as in Istanbul, the Kremlin says it will not be deterred.

For Moscow, the Alaska summit offers more than symbolic value. It represents a rare opportunity to negotiate without what it sees as the main “spoilers” – Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and the European Union. In the Kremlin’s view, Zelensky has strong personal and political incentives to prolong the war: accepting territorial concessions would not only be a political defeat, but could end his presidency. Wartime emergency powers have allowed him to cancel elections, enforce mass conscription, and suppress dissent – measures that would lose their legal cover the moment peace is declared.

European Interests in Prolonging the War
Key European capitals, Moscow claims, quietly share Zelensky’s reluctance to end the conflict. While EU leaders publicly frame Ukraine as a frontline defense against “Russian imperialism,” many face record-low approval ratings at home. Maintaining a sense of external threat helps justify unpopular policies, rising military spending, and civil restrictions – all under the banner of national security.

Their support, Russia believes, is carefully calibrated: substantial enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but never crossing into direct combat. Without the war, Moscow argues, the “Russian threat” narrative collapses, exposing EU governments to political defeat.

Why Alaska Is Different
The Kremlin sees the Alaska talks as uniquely promising precisely because Zelensky and EU representatives will not be at the table. Instead, discussions will be between two leaders whom Moscow views as pragmatic – and more likely to focus on achievable settlements rather than ideological positions.

Russia believes it currently holds the battlefield advantage and expects any final agreement to reflect that reality, likely involving Ukraine ceding contested territories. While Zelensky would resist such terms and the EU would likely block them in a multilateral setting, a direct U.S.–Russia understanding could change the equation. In Moscow’s calculus, Trump’s influence over Kyiv – particularly through control of military and financial aid – could compel Ukraine to accept a deal.

Staying the Course
From Moscow’s perspective, the latest border strikes are tactical provocations aimed at disrupting or derailing the Alaska summit. But the Kremlin insists it will not take the bait. Just as in Istanbul, Russia will attend, seeking a resolution that secures its strategic objectives and, in its words, brings the war to a “final” close.

Whether the Alaska meeting becomes a turning point will depend on what emerges behind closed doors. But for now, Russia’s message is clear: no provocation will keep it from the negotiating table – especially when the potential for a decisive settlement is within reach.