Why is Moscow escalating missile attacks amid peace overtures?

In an increasingly contradictory phase of the Russia-Ukraine war, Moscow launched one of its largest aerial offensives against Kyiv on May 24, 2025—just hours after it agreed to the largest prisoner exchange since the conflict began. As Ukrainian civilians sheltered from a barrage of ballistic missiles and swarms of Shahed drones, diplomats from both nations confirmed the successful release of 390 prisoners each, with the full 1,000-for-1,000 exchange expected to be completed over the coming days.

This juxtaposition of escalation and diplomacy has confounded observers, raising the question: why would Russia intensify its attacks even as it participates in a humanitarian gesture widely seen as a stepping stone to broader negotiations?

What Was the Scale and Nature of the Attack on Kyiv?

At approximately 3:00 AM local time on Saturday, Ukraine’s air defense network was activated across multiple regions, with the heaviest concentration of interceptions reported in the skies above Kyiv. Russia deployed 14 Iskander-class ballistic missiles and around 250 Iranian-designed Shahed loitering munitions—drones known for their slow, persistent flight paths and ability to evade some radar systems.

Ukraine’s Air Force claimed an impressive 98% interception rate, stating that 6 missiles and 245 drones were successfully neutralized. However, falling debris still caused widespread damage, particularly in the Obolon and Solomyanskyi districts. Fires were reported in both residential buildings and commercial zones, and at least 17 civilians were hospitalized with injuries ranging from burns to blunt force trauma.

Military analysts have characterized the attack as one of the most extensive and complex barrages of the year, noting that the simultaneous use of drones and high-speed ballistic missiles is designed to overwhelm air defense systems by sheer volume and tactical diversity.

Why Is Russia Attacking While Participating in Peace Gestures?

This remains the central paradox of the current phase of the war. On the surface, the May 24 attack appears to undercut Russia’s stated interest in diplomacy. But behind the scenes, several explanations are being considered by geopolitical and military analysts:

First, the strike could be intended as a message of strength—a demonstration to both Ukraine and Western observers that Russia can maintain escalation dominance even while sitting at the negotiation table. This is a known strategy in conflict resolution theory, often referred to as “coercive diplomacy,” where force is used not to derail talks but to shift their terms.

Second, Russia may be leveraging the prisoner swap as a transactional move devoid of deeper commitments. According to officials close to the Istanbul discussions, Moscow has so far offered only a “draft proposal” on long-term settlement terms, which Ukrainian officials have neither confirmed nor endorsed.

Third, the aerial offensive may have domestic drivers. In the context of Russia’s upcoming political calendar and ongoing criticism from ultra-nationalist factions over perceived concessions, the Kremlin might view high-profile strikes as necessary signals to maintain internal legitimacy.

Finally, Moscow may be exploiting a perceived opening in Ukrainian air defenses. Despite Western upgrades, some regions—including parts of Kyiv—remain vulnerable to saturation attacks. The attack could serve tactical objectives unrelated to the diplomatic timeline.

How Has Ukraine Interpreted the Timing?

For Ukraine, the message from Moscow is clear and hostile. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned the assault as “a calculated attempt to undermine peace,” urging the international community to impose further sanctions on Russia. His comments follow earlier claims from Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence that over 150 Ukrainian POWs have been executed by Russian forces since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022—a charge Moscow has denied but one that continues to inflame Ukrainian public sentiment.

Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, while endorsing the prisoner swap as a first step toward ceasefire, has not ruled out the possibility that Russia is simply “buying time” while preparing for renewed offensives. Umerov stated that “peace does not begin with missiles,” and reiterated that Ukraine remains committed to its territorial integrity.

On the ground, public sentiment in Kyiv has grown increasingly skeptical about the value of negotiations conducted under fire. Social media channels lit up with videos of missile interceptions and building fires alongside bitter commentary questioning the sincerity of Moscow’s diplomatic intentions.

What Are the Broader Strategic Motives Behind the Escalation?

Strategically, Russia’s latest attacks may also serve military goals that intersect with its negotiating posture. Analysts suggest that Iskander and Shahed strikes may be part of efforts to disrupt Ukrainian military mobilizations, logistics hubs, or command-and-control infrastructure, particularly as Kyiv prepares for summer counteroffensives in eastern regions like Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia.

There’s also the psychological dimension. Moscow may be using the strikes to sap morale, particularly among recently returned Ukrainian POWs and their families. The timing, coming just hours after the first phase of the prisoner exchange, may be intended to send a chilling reminder of Russia’s firepower even amid gestures of leniency.

Furthermore, some Western intelligence assessments suggest that Russia could be trying to stall the ongoing delivery of new U.S. and European air defense systems by creating a sense of futility around existing ones—exaggerating the scale and success of its attacks to imply that Ukraine’s defenses remain inadequate.

Is This the Start of a New Phase in the War?

The intersection of kinetic attacks and diplomatic engagement has created a complicated, high-risk environment. While previous phases of the war—such as the failed Minsk II framework—also saw diplomacy unfold amid violence, the scale of current military operations suggests that this phase is defined by “dual-track escalation,” where both sides pursue battlefield gains while nominally leaving the door open to talks.

Russia’s draft “comprehensive settlement,” reportedly being finalized for submission after the full prisoner swap, could set the stage for renewed peace talks—potentially with Turkey, Qatar, or another neutral mediator. However, trust remains low, and the missile attacks have likely hardened Ukrainian negotiating positions.

If anything, the May 24 strikes signal that Russia is seeking to redefine the power balance ahead of any future ceasefire agreement. The attacks were not limited to Kyiv; Ukrainian officials also reported casualties in Kherson and Donetsk, while Russia itself claimed drone incursions in Lipetsk and Tula regions, accusing Ukraine of cross-border escalation.

How Is the International Community Reacting?

Global reaction has been swift but measured. The United Nations and the European Union have praised the prisoner swap while condemning the attacks on Kyiv. NATO has issued a statement expressing “deep concern” over the escalation, and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has urged both sides to “avoid provocations and pursue meaningful negotiations.”

In the financial markets, defense stocks saw a marginal uptick, particularly among missile defense system manufacturers in Germany and the U.S. However, energy markets remained steady, with traders interpreting the attack as part of the ongoing status quo rather than a major turning point.

Institutional sentiment among Western governments appears to be leaning toward cautious optimism about humanitarian corridors but remains pessimistic about any imminent ceasefire.