One of the main political outcomes of June was the obvious change in US President Donald Trump's rhetoric on Ukraine after his meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague. The American leader spoke with unexpected sympathy about the Ukrainian president – the same one with whom he had a well-known scandal in the Oval Office just a few months ago. It was predictable that after this scandal, Trump and Zelenskyy's personal relationship would not normalize, but we are seeing a completely different turn of events. Moreover, during a press conference with journalists, Trump even asked a Ukrainian journalist who asked him a question to convey his greetings to her husband, a soldier in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This was also a clear display of empathy on the part of the American president.
 

There may be several reasons for this rhetorical transformation. However, one of the most telling ones is, paradoxically, not directly related to Ukraine, but to Israel's war against Iran and the US involvement in this conflict. The decision to strike the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities proved that Trump, contrary to popular belief, is capable of acting when he deems it necessary and defending the idea of peace through force. And now he seems to expect the same seriousness from other world players.
 

After Iran, Trump may no longer want his initiatives to be treated lightly. Putin has repeatedly ignored calls for a ceasefire on the Russian-Ukrainian front. Now the American president may try to convince the Kremlin more seriously – from a position of strength, not agreements. And If he fails to convince, rhetoric may turn into concrete action: increased military aid to Ukraine or new economic sanctions against Russia.
 

Against this backdrop, it is important that Russia, despite its constant terror against Ukrainian cities and villages, has no serious military achievements. This terror itself is merely a demonstration of lack of success and an attempt to intimidate Ukrainian society. And all this is happening in front of Trump, who is well versed in distinguishing between strength and weakness.
 

In this context, the US president may treat the positions of NATO allies, who have long insisted on a tougher response to Russia, with greater respect. Fears that the NATO summit in The Hague would end without concrete results proved unfounded. The leaders of the states confirmed their commitment to Article 5, assured their continued support for Ukraine, and, most importantly, agreed to increase military spending to 5% of GDP. This idea, which dates back to Trump's first term, has now become part of the common Western consensus. Russia is the main factor that justifies it.
 

In such an atmosphere, Trump may initiate new – and perhaps more realistic – negotiations aimed at achieving a ceasefire on the Russian-Ukrainian front. Now, however, it will be more difficult for Putin to ignore American initiatives without consequences for himself.
 

Perhaps it is this realization that is forcing Putin to intensify his aerial terror. In June, the Russian army intensified its attacks on Kyiv, Dnipro, and other cities. The strikes were directed directly against the civilian population. This is not military tactics – it is psychological pressure. When it is not possible to conquer territory, Putin counts on destabilizing Ukraine from within. His hope is that Ukrainians will break down and agree to surrender on their own.
 

After all, this is what all the Kremlin's “peace initiatives” are aimed at. They are not about peace, but about the willingness to lay down arms. For example, the proposal to withdraw Ukrainian troops from all territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions – simply because these regions are still listed in the Russian constitution as part of the Russian Federation. This is not diplomacy – it is ideological aggression that masks military incompetence.
 

The same applies to plans to create a so-called “buffer zone” in the Sumy region. First, the occupation of part of the region. Then a referendum. Finally, an entry in the constitution. And again, the demand: “Get out of the entire region.” These are not peaceful proposals – this is a repeat of the annexation scenario.
 

Ukraine, on the other hand, is responding in an unconventional way. An example is Operation Spider Web, a strike on the Russian Federation's strategic aviation, carried out by drones from Russian territory. What once seemed impossible has become a reality. The war has changed.
 

And when Israeli special services carried out a similar – only larger-scale – operation on Iranian territory, it only confirmed the new paradigm: strength lies not only in the army, but also in the ability to act unconventionally, decisively, accurately, and in a modern way.
Russia could understand this. It could realize that the strategy of terror and blackmail no longer works. But Putin does not want to hear this. He is still obsessed with the idea of conquering Ukraine.
 

His speech at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum confirmed this once and for all. No mention of security, no talk of threats – just ideological clichés: “Ukraine is ours, it is Russia.” With this logic, there is no need even for arguments about the “Russian world.” He states outright: the Russian boot is the main justification. Once the soldiers arrive, the territory will not be left.
 

However, we know that this is a lie.
 

Russian soldiers' boots have left foreign soil more than once. Afghanistan. Central Europe. The Baltics. Troop withdrawals, destroyed barracks – we've seen it all before. And then, as now, the reason for defeat was not simply Moscow's weakness, but the militarism, ambition, and senseless stubbornness of the empire.
 

So we hope that the same will happen in Ukraine. But for this, we need help – military, financial, diplomatic. We need the West to understand that this war is not just Ukraine's. It is about the future of the civilized world itself.
 

That is why the meeting in the Hague was so important. Donald Trump's change of tone was so symbolic. But now it is important that the change in tone be followed by concrete actions.
 

Although we, as realists, understand well that these actions, as before, will only be possible after another – and perhaps not the last – attempt by Donald Trump to reach an agreement with Vladimir Putin.