Bombs, Bluster, And A Billion Lies. As Russia Rains Terror on Ukraine, Trump Faces His Kremlin Litmus Test

Ukraine is bleeding while the west waivers, even as Russia has unleashed its deadliest aerial blitz in months, killing at least 14 civilians over the weekend in a fresh wave of drone and missile strikes aimed squarely at Ukraine’s urban heart.

The message from Moscow is brutal but clear – terror from above is now Putin’s most potent weapon of psychological warfare. And it’s working, at least in shaping perceptions.

Analysts say this scorched-sky campaign is more optics than about military strategy, a deliberate attempt by the Kremlin to manufacture the illusion of dominance, fracture Ukrainian morale, and rattle the resolve of Kyiv’s increasingly fatigued Western backers.

The objective perhaps, is to wear down the support systems that are propping Ukraine up, both militarily and diplomatically.

Drones, Disinformation, and Death
Russia’s intensified airborne attacks, many using the domestically-produced version of Iranian Shahed drones, began in earnest last fall. But since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the frequency and ferocity have surged. Five of Russia’s largest drone barrages have occurred during Trump’s new term, four of them just in the past 10 days.

The escalation feels eerily timed especially since Trump campaigned on a bold promise to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. But instead of delivering peace, his administration is now caught in a geopolitical tug-of-war, with Trump himself swinging between vague threats to Putin and public outbursts against Ukraine’s President Zelensky.

Over the weekend, as Russian drones lit up Ukrainian skies, Trump declared that Putin “has gone absolutely CRAZY.” Yet in the same breath, he blasted Zelensky, claiming the Ukrainian leader’s pleas for support were causing “problems” and should “stop.” The mixed signals are not just confusing—they’re dangerous.

Russia’s Playbook – Divide, Delay, Dominate

Experts at the Institute for the Study of War have noted that Russia’s aerial onslaught is not about battlefield victories, but about manipulating global perception.

The strategy simple – bomb Ukraine into submission while making the West second-guess its continued support. And not limited to air raids alone – sabotage, cyberattacks, and arson across Europe linked to Russia are all part of a wider intimidation campaign targeting pro-Ukraine governments.

At the heart of this offensive is Putin’s real aim – outlast the West. With Trump openly skeptical about continued military aid to Ukraine and even briefly halting assistance earlier this year, the Kremlin smells an opportunity. A divided, distracted West gives Russia a strategic upper hand without firing a shot at NATO.

Trump’s Ceasefire Trap
Meanwhile, Trump has floated ceasefire proposals that seem more like gifts to Putin than genuine peace plans. Instead of rejecting them outright, Putin has masterfully stalled, adding new demands and blaming Kyiv for the breakdown in talks. This tactic not only buys Russia more time to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure, but also allows Putin to paint himself as the reasonable actor, while Trump falls for the façade.

Earlier this year, during a frosty Oval Office meeting, Trump reportedly told Zelensky he had “no cards” and should consider negotiating. But analysts argue that’s precisely the trap Putin wants Ukraine to fall into, a coerced negotiation under aerial siege, with the threat of abandonment by allies looming large.

Illusion vs. Reality
Yes, Russia has air superiority. Yes, Ukraine is under siege. But make no mistake –  Russia is not winning- at least not militarily. What it’s winning is the information war, the optics war, the war for the West’s attention span.

And Trump, with his erratic rhetoric and transactional diplomacy, is playing directly into Putin’s hands, whether he realizes it or not.

Hence, is America still the arsenal of democracy – or just a stage for the Kremlin’s propaganda?

Different Picture

When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Kremlin seemed convinced it would steamroll its way into Kyiv within days. But Ukraine had other plans. Backed by unexpectedly fierce resistance and growing Western military support, Ukrainian forces managed not only to halt Russia’s momentum but even reclaim significant chunks of lost territory in the early months.

Since then, however, progress has ground to a near-standstill. The last major territorial shift came in November 2023 when Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson. Russia has made incremental gains here and there, but nothing decisive –  and certainly no major cities have fallen into Moscow’s hands since.

Still, the cost of this deadlock has been brutal. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission reported that April was the deadliest month for Ukrainian civilians since September 2024, with at least 209 lives lost in Russian strikes. Nineteen children were killed and 78 more injured – the highest toll for minors since June 2022. And May has offered no reprieve. Ukraine’s Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko summed it up grimly: Russia’s goal, he said, is “fear and death.”

That fear is now met with a new kind of response.

The Twist

In a dramatic policy shift, Germany and several key Western allies have lifted long-standing restrictions preventing Ukraine from using long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made the announcement Monday, saying, “There are no longer any range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine. Neither from the British, nor from the French, nor from us. Nor by the Americans.”

Put simply, Ukraine is now officially permitted to strike military targets within Russia using Western-supplied weapons.

The change follows a weekend of intense aerial bombardment by Russia — one of the heaviest since the start of the war — with drones and missiles raining down on Ukrainian cities.

The shift also comes as Vladimir Putin faces growing international calls for a ceasefire, including from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has voiced frustration at the lack of progress on the ground.

Chancellor Merz, who took office just weeks ago, appears to be drawing a firm line, sharply breaking from the more cautious stance of his predecessor Olaf Scholz, who consistently opposed lifting the range restrictions. Still, Merz stopped short of confirming whether Germany would now send its long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine – something he had previously backed when in opposition.

The U.S., for its part, lifted its own restrictions last November. Former President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use the U.S.-supplied long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) on Russian soil – but only after months of heated debate. The Biden administration had initially refused to send the weapons at all, citing fears of escalation and concerns over dwindling Pentagon stockpiles. It wasn’t until April 2024 that ATACMS were finally delivered.

Unsurprisingly, Moscow is furious.

The Kremlin has long warned that strikes deep inside Russia using Western weapons could trigger a wider war with NATO. President Putin has even suggested that a conventional missile attack supported by a nuclear-armed state could prompt a nuclear response from Russia – in other words, as the war grinds on into its fourth year, the risks are rising.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to arrive in Berlin on Wednesday, according to several sources, as the missiles fell, Zelensky issued a renewed plea to Western allies to maintain pressure on Moscow.

“Without really strong pressure on the Russian leadership, this brutality cannot be stopped,” he said on Sunday, as images of the devastation swept across global media.

But while Kyiv asks for more support, the rhetoric out of Washington continues to twist and turn.

President Donald Trump on Monday ramped up his criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling him “absolutely crazy” – a rare show of bluntness. But the sharp edge of his comments dulled quickly, as he turned to criticize Zelensky, blaming the Ukrainian leader’s tone for causing “problems.”

It’s a pattern familiar to anyone tracking the U.S. stance on Ukraine in recent years: strong words, followed by hedging and little by way of decisive policy.

But pressure is mounting, even from within Trump’s own party. Senior Republicans, including Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham and Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick and Don Bacon, have begun urging the administration to act, particularly by strengthening sanctions against Moscow.

The war has now become a credibility test for Trump, not just on foreign policy, but on whether he can back up tough talk with real consequences.

Trump’s recent remarks slamming Putin could have marked a turning point. But in the Kremlin, they were brushed off as just another round of American bluster. Russian officials dismissed the statements as emotional noise, implying they carry no real threat.

And they might be right. Trump’s past interactions with Putin, both as president and since, have rarely unsettled the Russian leader. Even Monday’s lashing (calling Putin “crazy”) was paired with the usual swipe at Ukraine’s leadership, undercutting the impact of his message.

Some observers see Russia’s escalating attacks as more than just battlefield strategy, they are also a test of Trump’s mettle. Just a week after his heavily publicized phone call with Putin, which yielded no visible progress toward peace, Ukraine was hit with some of the worst drone strikes of the war.

Now, Trump stands at a crossroads. He has two real options, both of which would require him to abandon long-held positions.

First, he could finally take the sanctions route. Trump has long argued that new sanctions could damage diplomatic channels, but on Sunday in New Jersey, he acknowledged that imposing them was now “absolutely” on the table.

Second, he could push for a fresh round of military support echoing President Joe Biden’s move to secure congressional approval for arms shipments to Ukraine. That path, however, would mean going against the grain of his own campaign rhetoric, where opposing aid to Ukraine has become a pillar of his second-term pitch.

Taking either path would amount to a dramatic about-face, politically risky and personally humbling. It would mean admitting that, like many U.S. presidents before him, Trump misjudged Vladimir Putin and that the belief he could manage the Kremlin strongman was more illusion than reality.

Walking Away Would Hand Putin Victory on a Silver Platter
There’s a third option, and it is the most dangerous of all –  walking away. Trump could shrug, say neither side wants peace, and wash his hands of it all.

The MAGA base has flirted with this idea before and recent signals from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance suggest it’s gaining traction. But that would be catastrophic. It would validate Russia’s land grab, reward war crimes, and set a precedent that undermines every security alliance the U.S. leads.

Europe knows this. Macron recently warned that Putin lied to Trump and U.S. officials about wanting peace. Germany’s Chancellor Merz even lifted restrictions on Ukraine’s weapons use, signaling European impatience with American ambivalence.

The Last Bit,

Trump has spent years hedging, avoiding clear condemnation of Putin while railing against Ukraine and NATO. The world is watching whether this is another political head fake or if, just maybe, Trump realizes that strongmen don’t respond to tweets. They respond to consequences.

Because right now, Putin doesn’t fear Trump. He’s betting the president’s loud bark won’t come with a bite.

And unless Trump proves him wrong, Ukraine and America’s global credibility will pay the price.