Latest / USA Daily News / Russia’s Kyiv Strike Shatters a Fragile Peace Opening as U.S. Envoys Leave Ukraine

Transcript

Russia’s Kyiv Strike Shatters a Fragile Peace Opening as U.S. Envoys Leave Ukraine · USA Daily News

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: The latest Russian assault on Kiev has delivered a jarring
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: answer to one of the central questions surrounding Washington's renewed
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: attempt to restart peace negotiations. Can diplomacy create even a
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: temporary opening when the battlefield remains active? U.S. envoys Steve
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Witkoff and Jared Kushner had just completed a politically significant
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: journey through Moscow and Kiev, carrying the Trump administration's effort
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: to revive talks that had stalled. Instead of producing a
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: sustained period of calm, The brief pause surrounding their mission
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: gave way to another wave of missiles and drones over
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: the Ukrainian capital. Early Tuesday, Russian forces struck Kiev with
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: a combination of ballistic and cruise missiles, while drones were
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: also reported across the capital and surrounding areas. Ukrainian authorities
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: said residential buildings were damaged, fires broke out, and residents
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: were urged to seek shelter as air defenses engaged incoming weapons.
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: The attack killed people and wounded others, according to Ukrainian officials,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: turning what had been presented as a narrow diplomatic window
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: into another reminder of how quickly military pressure can overwhelm
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: political optimism. The timing was especially striking because the U.S.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: delegation had only recently left Kyiv after meeting President Volodymyr Zelensky.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Their visit followed more than three hours of discussions with
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, where both sides described
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: the conversation as useful or substantive, but offered no public
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: evidence of a breakthrough. The envoys then traveled to Kiev,
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: where they held several hours of talks with Zelensky and
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: Ukrainian officials, with European national security advisors also participating. The
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: sequence was meant to demonstrate that Washington was engaging both
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: sides directly rather than relying on one-sided assurances. Yet the
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: return of Russian fire after the temporary suspension of attacks
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: showed just how fragile that diplomatic space remains. For people
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: living in Kiev, the distinction between negotiations and war is
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: not theoretical. It is measured in sirens, shelter warnings, shattered windows,
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: burning vehicles, damaged apartments, and the fear that the next
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: explosion may arrive before another round of diplomacy can even begin.
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: The symbolism of the timing is impossible to overlook. The
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: delegation was designed to show that Washington could speak to
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Moscow without abandoning Kiev, while the strike showed that the
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: military contest remained capable of overriding the diplomatic calendar. The
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: pause had created an expectation, however modest, that the capitals
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: could remain quieter while negotiators worked. When that expectation ended,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: the contrast was immediate and unsettling. The American mission had
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: therefore produced access, but access is only the first stage
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: of mediation. The harder stage is changing incentives. Neither side
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: has yet demonstrated publicly that it believes the costs of
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: continued fighting have become greater than the costs of compromise.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: That calculation is central to every future meeting. If Russia
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: believes battlefield pressure can improve its position, Moscow may have
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: little reason to accept an agreement it considers unfavorable. If
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: Ukraine believes concessions without firm guarantees would invite renewed aggression,
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: Kyiv may have little reason to accept a rushed settlement.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: Washington must operate between those positions while maintaining enough trust
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: with both sides to keep negotiations alive. The attack also
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: raises questions about how future diplomatic travel can be protected
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: and whether temporary arrangements can be extended without becoming targets themselves.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: For civilians, the practical demand is simpler. They want the
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: alarms to stop and the promise of peace to become
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: something more tangible than another statement from officials. That gap
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: between diplomatic language and lived experience is now one of
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: the defining challenges of the peace effort. The attack also
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: changes the atmosphere in which the next American message will
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: be received. A proposal delivered before the strikes might be
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: interpreted as an invitation to compromise. The same proposal delivered
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: afterward will be examined through the lens of fresh destruction.
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: That does not make negotiation impossible, but it raises the
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: political cost of every concession. Ukrainian officials must be able
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: to tell their population that diplomacy is producing protection rather
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: than merely postponing danger. Russian officials, for their part, must
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: be convinced that negotiation can advance Moscow's interests more effectively
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: than another round of escalation. Washington has to show that
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: continued engagement is not a reward for attacks, but a
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: tool for testing whether the conflict can be reduced. This
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: is why the next steps matter more than the rhetoric
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: surrounding the last meeting. If the process produces only statements
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: while the strikes grow larger, skepticism will deepen. That is
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: the narrow space in which the next phase of diplomacy
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: must wisely operate. The journey by Witkoff and Kushner was
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: important not simply because two senior American representatives entered Kyiv,
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: but because it represented an attempt to bridge a diplomatic
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: gap that has persisted despite repeated rounds of negotiations. The
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: envoys arrived in the Ukrainian capital after speaking directly with
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: Putin in Moscow, making their mission a shuttle effort between
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: two governments whose positions remain sharply divided. Their first official
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: visit to Kyiv as peace negotiators carried symbolic weight for Ukraine,
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: which has repeatedly sought direct engagement with Washington and firm
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: guarantees about what would happen if a settlement were reached.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: Zelensky made clear before the meeting that Ukraine was prepared
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: to negotiate, but he also emphasized that any agreement would
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: need to include security guarantees and a post-war arrangement that
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: Kyiv could consider legitimate and durable. Those demands go to
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: the heart of the problem. Ukraine is not simply asking
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: for a pause in shooting. it wants confidence that another
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: invasion will not follow a temporary settlement. Russia, meanwhile, continues
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: to frame the conflict around what its officials call the
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: underlying or root causes, language that has been associated with
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: demands concerning Ukrainian territory. military capabilities, and the country's future
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: security alignment. That difference makes the diplomatic task extraordinarily difficult.
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: Wyckoff and Kushner could carry proposals between capitals, encourage new meetings,
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: and search for areas of overlap, but they could not
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: erase the fundamental disagreements simply by putting both sides at
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: the same negotiating table. Still, Their meetings mattered because the
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: alternative was a continued diplomatic vacuum while the military campaign intensified.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: The Trump administration has argued that direct engagement is necessary
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: to test whether a workable path exists, and the envoys
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: said the conversations had been meaningful and that additional talks
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: could be arranged. From Kiev's perspective, even an imperfect negotiating
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: channel is preferable to having no channel at all. But
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: the renewed strikes illustrate the limits of that optimism. A
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: ceasefire covering the capitals can provide a narrow opening for diplomats,
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: yet it does not necessarily translate into a comprehensive halt
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: along the front, nor does it settle the deeper disputes
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: that have sustained the war. The challenge for Washington is
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: therefore not merely to produce another meeting, but to create
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: enough mutual incentive for both governments to accept difficult compromises
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: without believing that continued military pressure will produce a better outcome.
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: The political meaning of the visit was also shaped by
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: the fact that Ukraine had wanted a direct American presence
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: in Kiev. Meetings in Moscow alone could have raised concerns
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: that Russian views were receiving greater attention, while a Kiev
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: visit demonstrated that Washington intended to hear Ukrainian concerns firsthand.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Zelensky used the opportunity to emphasize that his government had
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: proposals ready and that peace must include protection against another conflict.
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: European officials joining part of the discussions reinforced the idea
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: that any eventual settlement will have consequences far beyond the
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: two principal combatants. Britain, France, and Germany have repeatedly argued
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: that European security cannot be separated from the outcome in Ukraine.
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: Their involvement could become particularly important if an agreement requires monitoring,
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: reconstruction support, or long-term deterrence arrangements. The negotiations are therefore
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: likely to involve several layers at once, an immediate reduction
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: in violence, a political settlement over disputed territory, security guarantees,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: economic reconstruction, and a mechanism for enforcing whatever is agreed.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: Each layer creates its own disagreements. Even if diplomats find
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: language acceptable to both governments, implementation could become a separate struggle.
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: That is why the next round of talks will be
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: judged not only by whether officials meet, but by whether
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: they arrive with detailed proposals that can survive contact with
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: political and military realities. The envoys' ability to move between
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: capitals gives Washington an unusual channel, but it also places
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: a heavy burden on them to distinguish genuine flexibility from
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: temporary messaging. A durable process will require both. The symbolism
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: of the key of stop may therefore matter almost as
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: much as its immediate results. By standing beside Zelenskyy, the
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: American envoys signaled that the peace effort was not confined
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: to conversations with Moscow. By traveling from one capital to
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: the other, they also demonstrated that Washington was willing to
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: carry difficult messages in both directions. That role is demanding
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: because every phrase can be interpreted as a concession. The mediator, therefore,
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: has to retain credibility with everyone at the table. The
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: symbolism of the key of stop may therefore matter almost
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: as much as its current political role. The temporary halt
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: in attacks surrounding the American Envoy's movements was its an
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: unusual feature of the mission, because both Moscow and Kiev
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: understood that the safety of the diplomatic effort required at
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: least some reduction in strikes against the capitals. Putin ordered
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: a three-day suspension of Russian attacks on Kiev, while Ukraine
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: also reduced attacks directed toward Moscow during the period. The
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: pause created a brief change in the atmosphere of a
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: city that had experienced intense aerial attacks, and Zelensky even
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: used humor to suggest that the presence of the American
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: representatives seemed to offer unusually strong protection. But the arrangement
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: was never equivalent to a comprehensive ceasefire. Fighting continued elsewhere,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: and the underlying military confrontation did not disappear. Once the
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: agreed period expired, the sounds of explosions returned, and the
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: distinction between a diplomatic pause and a genuine cessation of
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: hostilities became painfully clear. The renewed attack also underscored how
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: both governments continue to use long-range strikes as instruments of pressure.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: Russia has increasingly relied on drones and missiles to target
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, while Ukraine has expanded its own
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: deep strikes against Russian facilities, including energy and industrial targets.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: Each side says its attacks are connected to military objectives,
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: but the consequences extend into civilian life, transportation, energy security,
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: and the ability of communities to function normally. For Ukraine,
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: the danger becomes particularly serious as winter approaches, because damage
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: to power generation and distribution can create hardships far beyond
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: the immediate impact zone of a single strike. Kiev therefore
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: entered the talks seeking not only a political pathway, but
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: also continued assistance with air defense and energy resilience. The
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: shortage of interceptors is a recurring concern. especially when Russian
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: forces combined different kinds of missiles and drones in large
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: attacks designed to overwhelm defensive systems. The diplomatic mission thus
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: took place under a difficult clock. American negotiators were trying
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: to build a process while Ukraine was preparing for another
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: season of aerial pressure and Russia was attempting to preserve
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: military leverage while presenting itself as willing to discuss peace.
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: The result was a fragile contradiction. Negotiations were active, but
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: the weapons were still shaping the terms of those negotiations.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: Every strike could change the political calculations, while every diplomatic
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: statement was being judged against what happened in the sky
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: over Ukrainian cities. Another important element is that the pause
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: was limited to the capitals rather than the entire battlefield.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: That distinction meant Ukrainian and Russian troops could continue fighting
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: in other areas even while negotiators traveled safely. It also
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: meant that neither government had to surrender its broader military
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: posture merely to create a protected environment for diplomacy. Such
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: narrow arrangements can be useful because they are easier to negotiate,
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: but they can also be fragile because they leave most
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: of the conflict untouched. A missile attack outside the designated
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: area can trigger retaliation, and retaliation can quickly undermine confidence
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: in a wider process. The use of drones adds another
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: complication because their launch, flight, and interception can occur across
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: enormous distances, making attribution and control more difficult during tense periods.
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: Air defense crews must make decisions in seconds, while diplomats
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: may need days to determine what an incident means politically.
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: That mismatch between military speed and diplomatic speed is one
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: reason modern ceasefires are so difficult to sustain. Ukraine's preparations
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: for winter at urgency because infrastructure damage accumulates over time.
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: Restoring a power facility after one strike may be possible,
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: but repeated attacks can exhaust equipment, personnel, and repair capacity.
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: The same applies to civilian morale. A population can endure
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: extraordinary hardship, but repeated nights of alarms and explosions carry
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: a psychological cost that cannot be measured only in physical damage.
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: These realities are part of the negotiating environment. Any serious
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: peace proposal must account for them rather than treating the
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: war as a purely territorial dispute. The latest assault demonstrates
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: why humanitarian and infrastructure protections could become useful early targets
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: for negotiation even before a final political agreement is possible.
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: Each stage would provide a test. If one side violates
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: the arrangement, the response could be limited and clearly defined
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: rather than allowing the entire diplomatic process to collapse. Such
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: an approach would not eliminate mistrust, but it could make
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: mistrust manageable. The latest attack demonstrates why those technical details
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: are not secondary. Such an approach would not eliminate mistrust,
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: but it can make doubt manageable in practice too. The
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: most difficult question now is whether the renewed American effort
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: can move beyond encouraging language and produce an actual negotiating framework.
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: Wyckoff and Kushner emerged from their meetings with statements suggesting progress,
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: including the possibility of additional trilateral discussions involving the United States, Russia,
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: and Ukraine. That possibility matters because earlier efforts have struggled
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: to turn bilateral contacts into a sustained process in which
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: the principal disputes are addressed directly. A future trilateral meeting
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: would place the two sides in the same diplomatic format,
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: with Washington attempting to act as mediator and pressure both
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: governments toward practical compromises. Yet scheduling a meeting is much
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: easier than resolving the issues that have blocked an agreement.
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: Territorial control remains one of the most sensitive disputes. Russia
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: has pressed for Ukrainian withdrawal from parts of the eastern
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: Donbass that Kyiv still holds, while Ukraine has rejected surrendering
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: territory as the price of peace. Security guarantees are another
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: major obstacle. Ukrainian officials want assurances strong enough to deter
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: a future Russian attack, while Moscow has historically objected to
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: arrangements that would deepen Ukraine's military relationship with Western countries.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: The two sides therefore face a fundamental problem of trust.
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: Ukraine fears that an agreement without enforceable guarantees could simply
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: postpone another war, while Russia has its own demands about
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: Ukraine's military and geopolitical position. Economic reconstruction adds another layer.
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: A post-war Ukraine would need massive investment, functioning infrastructure, secure
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: energy supplies, and confidence from businesses and international partners. Zelensky
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: has discussed economic guarantees and a prosperity plan alongside military security,
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: reflecting the reality that peace must involve more than the
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: absence of explosions. It must create conditions in which millions
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: of people can rebuild homes, restart businesses, return from displacement,
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: and believe that the settlement will endure. Washington's challenge is
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: to persuade both sides that the benefits of compromise outweigh
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: the perceived advantages of continuing the conflict. That becomes harder
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: when battlefield developments appear to strengthen one side's belief that
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: time is working in its favor. The latest strikes reinforce
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: the urgency but may also reinforce the opposite instinct, with
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: each side looking for greater leverage before making concessions. For
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: diplomacy to succeed, the negotiations will have to survive that
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: cycle rather than become another pause between rounds of escalation.
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: There is also a question of sequencing. If the parties
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: attempt to settle every major issue simultaneously, negotiations could become
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: paralyzed by the hardest disputes. If they begin with limited measures,
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: they may create enough trust to tackle more difficult questions later.
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: American mediators, therefore, have an incentive to identify areas where
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: both sides can claim a practical benefit without appearing to
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: surrender their broader positions. Energy infrastructure could be one such
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: area because attacks on power systems threaten civilians regardless of
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: political affiliation. Humanitarian exchanges, civilian protection, and emergency communications could
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: provide other opportunities. None would resolve the territorial dispute but
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: each could demonstrate whether the parties are capable of honoring
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: a negotiated commitment. Verification would be essential. Without reliable monitoring,
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: each side could accuse the other of violations, making even
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: a small agreement collapse under competing narratives. International observers or
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: technical monitoring arrangements could eventually become part of that structure,
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: although the political details would be difficult. The larger question
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: is whether Putin and Zelensky believe Washington can deliver meaningful
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: consequences if commitments are broken. Mediation depends on credibility, and
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: credibility comes from more than public statements. It requires the
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: ability to reward cooperation, impose costs for obstruction, and maintain
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: consistent engagement when talks become frustrating. The United States also
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: has to manage expectations at home and abroad. President Trump
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: has emphasized ending the war, creating pressure for visible progress,
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: but a settlement reached too quickly could be unstable if
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: the underlying disagreements remain unresolved. A slower process may be
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: criticized as insufficiently ambitious, yet a carefully built process could
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: produce a stronger result. The latest strikes make that tension
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: sharper because every day of negotiation can coincide with another
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: day of casualties. Europe would need to rebuild a security
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: framework around a new reality, and the United States would
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: have to decide how long it would remain involved. A
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: settlement that ignores the post-war period could leave unresolved grievances
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: that may become the foundation for renewed conflict and instability.
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: For the people of Kiev, however, the diplomatic calculations in
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: Moscow and Washington are inseparable from the immediate reality of
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: surviving another night of war. The capital has spent years
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: adapting to air raid alarms, emergency shelters, power disruptions, damaged buildings,
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: and the constant possibility that a missile or drone may
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: arrive with little warning. Recent attacks have intensified that pressure,
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: with Russian forces using increasingly fast drones alongside missile strikes
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: and maintaining an ability to reach deep into Ukrainian territory.
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: The temporary calm during the American delegation's visit offered residents
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: something unusual, several hours when the threat appeared less intense.
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: But the return of attacks after the envoys departed made
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: clear that the relief was conditional and temporary. Residential buildings
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: were among the structures reported damaged in the latest assault,
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: and emergency crews were called to fires and damaged sites.
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: Such incidents have a cumulative effect. Even when a building
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: can be repaired— Repeated attacks create displacement, anxiety and financial strain,
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: while damaged schools, clinics, warehouses and transportation links disrupt ordinary life.
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: Ukraine's need for additional air defense interceptors is therefore not
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: simply a military request. It is directly connected to protecting
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: civilians and maintaining the functioning of cities. The same logic
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: applies to energy infrastructure. A sustained campaign against power generation
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: can force authorities to ration electricity, complicate heating during winter,
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: and make it harder for hospitals, businesses, and households to operate.
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: Ukrainian officials have consequently emphasized a winter support package as
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: part of their discussions with Washington. The goal is to
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: make the country more resilient while diplomatic efforts continue. That
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: resilience could also influence negotiations, because a government that can
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: protect its population and sustain essential services is less vulnerable
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: to pressure created by attacks. Russia has its own vulnerabilities,
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: and Ukrainian strikes on oil refineries and other facilities show
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: that Kyiv is attempting to impose costs beyond the front line.
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: This creates a dangerous feedback loop in which each side
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: tries to demonstrate that it can absorb punishment while increasing
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: the price for the other side. Diplomacy must interrupt that
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: loop before it becomes even more destructive. The central test
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: for the coming weeks will be whether the temporary diplomatic
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: openings created by Washington can be converted into concrete measures
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: that reduce the danger for civilians rather than simply providing
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: short pauses before the next barrage. The civilian dimension may
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: ultimately shape political decisions more than diplomatic rhetoric does. Families
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: in Kiev do not experience the conflict as a debate
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: over negotiating formats, They experience it through whether their apartment
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: remains intact, whether electricity is available, whether children can attend school,
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: and whether emergency services can reach damaged neighborhoods. Businesses face
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: similar uncertainty. Repeated attacks can force closures, damage equipment, and
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: discourage investment, while workers may struggle to travel safely. Hospitals
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: and clinics require backup power and secure supply chains, and
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: transportation networks must operate despite alerts and debris. This makes
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: infrastructure protection a central component of national resilience. Ukraine's request
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: for more air defense assistance reflects that reality. Interceptors can
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: reduce damage, but supplies are finite, and every large attack
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: creates a difficult allocation problem. Authorities must decide which threats
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: to prioritize and where defenses are most needed. Russia's ability
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: to vary the types and routes of incoming weapons complicates
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: those decisions. Ukraine's own long-range attacks also affect the strategic
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: environment by demonstrating that the country can impose costs inside Russia,
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: although those operations carry their own risks of escalation. The
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: result is a conflict in which both sides increasingly seek
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: strategic depth rather than concentrating solely on trenches at the front.
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: That trend makes diplomatic de-escalation more important because the geographic
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: reach of the fighting is expanding. A settlement that stops
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: only ground combat while allowing long-range attacks to continue would
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: leave civilians exposed and could quickly unravel. Any credible ceasefire
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: would need clear rules about missiles, drones, infrastructure, and retaliation.
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: The challenge is enormous, but the latest violence also shows
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: why limited agreements could be worth pursuing even before a
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: comprehensive peace becomes possible. Businesses can lose customers, employees, and
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: access to markets. They become part of the reconstruction burden.
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: A smaller agreement that saves lives can be valuable in
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: its own right while larger political questions continue. These consequences
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: do not vanish when the fighting stops. They remain after
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: the guns fall silent. Russia's response to the diplomatic initiative
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: also provides a crucial measure of how far the peace
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: effort has actually advanced. Moscow has described its discussions with
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: the American envoys as useful and has kept open the
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: possibility of further negotiations, but statements from Russian officials have
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: not suggested that the Kremlin is prepared to abandon its
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: core demands. Putin has continued to speak about achieving Russia's
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: objectives and addressing what Moscow calls the root causes of
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: the conflict. Those positions are important because they indicate that
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: Russia may view negotiations not as an alternative to military pressure,
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: but as another arena in which pressure can be converted
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: into political concessions. If that is the calculation, then continued
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: strikes could be intended to reinforce Moscow's bargaining position even
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: while diplomats are talking. The latest attack on Kyiv therefore
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: carries significance beyond the immediate damage. It tests whether the
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: diplomatic channel can function while military coercion continues. Ukraine sees
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: the problem differently. Kyiv wants Washington and its European partners
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: to recognize that any peace arrangement must prevent Russia from
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: simply regrouping and launching another offensive later. That is why
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: security guarantees have become so central to the Ukrainian position.
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: European governments participating in the Kiev discussions also have a
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: direct stake in the outcome because a durable settlement would
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: affect the security architecture of the continent for years. Poland's
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: decision to activate preventive air defense measures during the latest
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: Russian assault illustrates how quickly the conflict's aerial dimension can
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: create concerns beyond Ukraine's borders. The war has repeatedly demonstrated
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: that missiles and drones do not respect political expectations and
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: neighboring states must prepare for the possibility of spillover or
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: accidental incursions. At the same time, Russia's own territory has
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: faced Ukrainian drone attacks, including reports of damage and injuries
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: in Saratov. The escalation is therefore not occurring in only
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: one direction. Both sides possess the ability to strike far
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: from the front, and both are using that capability to
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: signal that the war carries costs for the opponent. This
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: makes a negotiated settlement simultaneously more urgent and more difficult.
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: Each additional attack creates fresh casualties and destruction, but it
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: can also harden public opinion and reduce the political space
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: leaders have for compromise. The United States must therefore navigate
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: between two realities— Military pressure has not stopped either side
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: from fighting, yet neither side has demonstrated that it can
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: secure a decisive outcome that makes negotiations unnecessary. Moscow's calculation
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: will be closely watched because the Kremlin has repeatedly combined
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: diplomatic engagement with military operations. From Russia's perspective, negotiating while
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: continuing pressure can preserve leverage and prevent Ukraine from interpreting
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: talks as evidence that Moscow has weakened. From Kiev's perspective,
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: the same behavior can be interpreted as proof that Russia
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: is using negotiations to gain time or extract concessions. This
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: difference in interpretation is a major obstacle to trust. The
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: United States will have to determine whether Russian participation represents
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: genuine willingness to compromise or simply a tactical decision to
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: keep channels open. The same scrutiny will apply to Ukraine.
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: Washington will want Kiev to demonstrate flexibility on issues that
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: it considers essential, while Ukraine will insist that flexibility cannot
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: mean accepting conditions that make the country permanently vulnerable. European
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: governments will be watching closely as well. Their future defense planning,
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: energy policies, and relations with both Washington and Moscow could
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: be influenced by the terms of any agreement. The war
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: has already changed European security calculations, and a settlement would
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: not automatically restore the pre-war environment. Instead, Europe would have
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: to decide how to help guarantee the peace and how
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: to respond if violations occurred. That is why the diplomatic
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: architecture surrounding Ukraine matters almost as much as the text
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: of a potential agreement. A ceasefire without credible enforcement could
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: become a temporary pause before another conflict. A settlement supported
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: by a broad coalition could have a better chance of enduring.
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: The latest attack makes that distinction urgent because it demonstrates
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: that promises of restraint are meaningful only if they can
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: be sustained after the diplomats leave. Ukraine will face its
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: own decisions about whether to continue deep strikes inside Russia
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: during a diplomatic process. The United States may therefore spend
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: much of the next phase persuading both sides that controlled
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: restraint is not weakness, but an investment in a more
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: favorable negotiating environment. Those choices may affect the willingness of
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: Moscow to maintain restraint during new negotiations. The Trump administration
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: now faces a diplomatic test that is more complicated than
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: simply persuading Russia and Ukraine to return to a negotiating table.
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: It must determine whether there is a sequence of steps
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: capable of producing a sustained reduction in violence while preserving
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: enough confidence for the two sides to make politically difficult decisions.
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: The recent mission offers some reasons for cautious optimism. The
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: American envoys met Putin, traveled to Kyiv, spoke with Zelensky
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: and engaged with European officials, demonstrating that Washington has re-established
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: a direct channel across the conflict. They also discussed possible
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: next steps and the prospect of renewed trilateral talks. but
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: the immediate return of Russian strikes provides an equally strong
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: reason for caution. The diplomacy has not yet changed the
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: military equation, and there is no public evidence that the
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: fundamental disagreements over territory, security guarantees, or Ukraine's future alignment
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: have been resolved. The United States could try to build
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: confidence through smaller agreements before pursuing a comprehensive settlement. These
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: might include narrowly defined limits on attacks against specific categories
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: of infrastructure, arrangements for humanitarian access, protection for energy systems,
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: or procedures for maintaining communication during crises. Such measures would
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: not end the war, but they could create evidence that
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: negotiated commitments can actually be honored. That evidence would matter
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: because the biggest obstacle may be credibility. Every side has
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: reasons to doubt the other, and every previous breakdown reinforces
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: those doubts. A lasting agreement would therefore require mechanisms for verification,
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: consequences for violations, and a political structure capable of surviving
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: changes in battlefield conditions. It would also require Europe to
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: play a substantial role because European governments will remain important
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: to Ukraine's security, reconstruction, and economic future. The American effort
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: cannot operate in isolation from those partners. The Kiev meeting's
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: participation by British, French, and German national security officials showed
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: recognition of that reality. The next stage will reveal whether
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: that broader coalition can translate shared concern into a coordinated
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: negotiating position. If Washington can narrow the issues and establish
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: a credible process, the latest mission may eventually be remembered
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: as the beginning of a serious diplomatic phase. If not,
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: the visit could become another episode in a long sequence
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: of negotiations that briefly raise expectations before the battlefield reasserts itself.
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: For Washington, the next stage will likely require patience combined
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: with measurable objectives. Simply announcing that talks are progressing will
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: not be enough if the battlefield continues to deteriorate. The
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: administration will need indicators that can show whether the process
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: is moving forward, agreement on a meeting schedule, technical discussions
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: about ceasefire terms, movement on humanitarian issues, clarity about security
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: guarantees and evidence that attacks are decreasing rather than merely
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: shifting from one location to another. These benchmarks could help
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: prevent the process from becoming dependent on optimistic statements. they
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: could also give both Moscow and Kiev incentives to demonstrate cooperation.
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: A structured sequence would allow negotiators to isolate disagreements instead
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: of allowing every dispute to block every other discussion. It
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: could also create opportunities for private diplomacy, where difficult compromises
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: are easier to explore than they are in public. The
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: presence of European advisors in Kiev suggests that the next
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: phase may increasingly involve coordination among Washington and and its
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: European partners. That coordination will be important if security guarantees
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: are part of the final arrangement. It will also matter
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: for reconstruction, sanctions policy, and the future of Ukraine's military. Russia, meanwhile,
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: will be evaluating whether Western unity remains strong and whether
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: Ukraine can sustain the war economically and militarily. Those calculations
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: will influence the willingness to compromise. The United States cannot
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: control every variable, but it can shape the environment by
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: making clear what forms of cooperation will produce benefits and
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: what forms of escalation will produce consequences. The renewed strikes
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: show that leverage remains necessary alongside dialogue. The two are
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: not opposites. In difficult negotiations, each can reinforce the other.
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: A genuine process would show continuity. Officials would meet repeatedly.
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: Proposals would become more detailed. Disagreements would be isolated rather
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: than allowed to derail everything, and military activity would begin
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: to decline. But the eventual evidence will come from whether
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: the parties begin accepting reciprocal limits and preparing for implementation.
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: The difference may remain unclear while talks continue behind closed
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: doors for quite some time. The coming weeks are therefore
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: likely to be defined by a race between diplomacy and escalation,
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: with both moving quickly and neither guaranteed to prevail. The
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: American side wants to build on the conversations in Moscow
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: and Kiev and revive a process that could eventually bring
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: Russia and Ukraine into direct trilateral negotiations. Ukrainian leaders want
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: continued American and European assistance, especially for air defense and
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: energy security, while also seeking a settlement that does not
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: leave the country exposed to another invasion. Russia has shown
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: willingness to engage with U.S. intermediaries, but continues to insist
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: on objectives that appear incompatible with many of Kyiv's demands.
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: The latest attack on Kyiv demonstrates that the gap remains enormous.
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: A three-day pause was possible, but it did not become
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: a lasting ceasefire. A meeting was possible, but it did
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: not produce an announced peace agreement. Statements about progress were possible,
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: but missiles and drones returned almost immediately after the diplomatic
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: window closed. That combination captures the uncertainty surrounding the entire effort.
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: It would be a mistake to conclude that negotiations have
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: failed simply because the war continues, complex conflicts rarely end
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: after one meeting, and the absence of an immediate breakthrough
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: does not mean diplomacy has no value. At the same time,
• 36:26
  Speaker 1: it would be equally misleading to treat optimistic statements as
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: proof that a settlement is close. The evidence so far
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: points to a process that has reopened rather than one
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: that has succeeded. Its success will depend on whether the
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: participants can convert contact into commitments, commitments into verifiable actions,
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: and temporary restraint into something that lasts longer than a
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: diplomatic visit. For Kiev, the stakes are existential. For Moscow,
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: the stakes involve territory. strategic influence, and the political goals
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: that have defined its war. For Washington, the challenge is
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: to use its leverage without allowing the negotiation process to
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: become disconnected from the realities of the battlefield. And for Europe,
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: the outcome will shape the continent's security environment long after
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: the current fighting stops. The latest strikes have made one
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: fact impossible to ignore. The war has not paused simply
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: because diplomats have arrived. The negotiations must therefore operate in
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: the shadow of continuing violence, and every successful step will
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: have to withstand the pressure created by the next attack.
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: Whether the United States can transform this fragile opening into
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: a durable path toward peace remains unresolved, but the urgency
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: is greater than ever because the cost of waiting is
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: being paid in damaged cities, disrupted lives, and lives lost.
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: The significance of the latest attack extends beyond one morning
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: in Kyiv, because it will influence how every participant interprets
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: the next diplomatic move. Ukraine can point to the strikes
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: as evidence that military pressure continues even after high-level meetings.
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: Russia can argue that its operations are directed at military
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: and logistical targets and that negotiations do not require it
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: to surrender its strategic objectives. The United States can emphasize
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: that a temporary opening existed and that further talks remain possible.
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: European governments can insist that any peace arrangement must include
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: safeguards strong enough to prevent renewed aggression. All of those
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: narratives can coexist, but they lead to different expectations about
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: what comes next. The most important development would be a
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: decision to keep talking despite the renewed violence. That would
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: not mean the conflict is nearing its end. It would
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: mean the diplomatic process has become resilient enough to operate
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: under pressure. If future talks are accompanied by practical reductions
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: in attacks, the process would gain credibility. If meetings continue
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: while violence intensifies, public confidence could erode rapidly. The coming
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: period will therefore be a test not only of diplomacy
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: but of political endurance. Leaders will need to explain why
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: negotiations remain worthwhile when each side can point to fresh
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: evidence of the other's hostility. The answer will have to
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: be concrete. People will want to see fewer alarms, fewer casualties,
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: and greater protection for essential infrastructure. Governments will want guarantees
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: about territory and security. Allies will want clarity about their responsibilities.
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: The United States will want a settlement that can be
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: presented as durable rather than temporary. Those goals do not
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: automatically align, but they create the framework for the work ahead.
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: The latest strikes have not closed the diplomatic door, but
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: they have made clear how narrow that door is and
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: how quickly it can be slammed shut by another escalation.
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: Negotiators need a quiet enough environment to work, while leaders
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: need confidence that reducing attacks will not leave them exposed.
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: The new strikes have made that task harder, but they
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: have still made its importance unmistakable.