Putin's Envoy Held “Constructive” Talks in Washington. Over the Same 24 Hours, Russian Drones Were Killing People in Kyiv

The picture is this: in Washington, a calm conversation about “peaceful settlement.” In Kyiv, drones buzzing overhead for the fourth consecutive night. Both scenes belong to the same Russian strategy.

Reuters first reported Dmitriev's trip on September 23, citing sources. By September 28 he was in the United States. On September 29, the agency quoted an unnamed US official: Dmitriev was in Washington “to continue constructive talks on ending the Russia-Ukraine war and possible US-Russia energy initiatives after the war ends.”

Read that sentence again. “Energy initiatives after the war ends.” While people die at the front every day, Washington is discussing who gets to carve up the energy market in a postwar Ukraine — without Ukraine in the room.

Who sat across from Dmitriev is unknown. Reuters cites an unnamed official. What the “initiatives” actually involve is also undisclosed. That is the first question for both sides: if the conversation is so constructive, why is it being described anonymously?

The second question is for the Kremlin. And it is far uglier.

While Putin's envoy was meeting American officials, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared on September 28 that Ukraine would have to “pay a price” for its actions in recent months. Russian forces, he said, are “consistently striking targets they consider appropriate.”

That “price” is not measured in diplomacy. On September 28, a Russian drone hit the National Academy of Sciences in central Kyiv — in daylight, while people were nearby. At least two people were killed, according to Reuters. The Guardian described the daytime attack and quoted Kyiv residents calling it “terrorism.”

According to Kyiv Post, one overnight barrage saw 155 missiles and drones launched at Ukraine over 14 hours — two killed, 26 wounded. Kyiv Independent reports Kyiv has been under attack for four consecutive nights.

Now put the two facts side by side. On one hand, “constructive peace talks.” On the other, “Ukraine will pay a price” — and more civilians dead in the capital's center. This is not a contradiction. It is a method. Moscow negotiates and escalates simultaneously, so that the “price” Peskov mentions is as high as possible for Ukraine.

Analysts at the Institute for the Study of War read Putin's intent even more starkly: in their assessment, he aims to force Ukraine's capitulation by spring 2027 through intensified strikes. To be clear, that is an analytical judgment, not an established fact. But it explains why the bombardments coincide with the talks rather than preceding them.

What does this mean for the Trump administration? Pressure at home is building. A bipartisan push for new sanctions on Russia is gaining ground in Congress following the strikes on civilians — legislation backed in part by Senator Lindsey Graham, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Part of the American political establishment, in other words, views these “constructive conversations” with Dmitriev with anything but enthusiasm.

One more detail from Peskov: Putin, he said, made an “exhaustive statement” last Friday that talks are possible — but only “based on Russia's interests.” Moscow must also “guarantee its security” so that no one gets “too bold” about planning a “crushing strike on Russia within forty days,” which, he claimed, had been voiced in Kyiv. There is no independent confirmation of that claim — it is the word of the Kremlin's spokesman.

The bottom line is simple. Ukraine's war is being discussed in Washington without Ukraine. The agenda includes not just peace, but postwar energy spoils. Moscow openly says Ukraine will “pay a price” — and keeps killing. Kyiv, unrepresented at the table, can only note that the framework deciding its future has once again been assembled without it.

What happens next depends on two things: whether the Trump administration acts on the sanctions Congress is demanding, and whether Ukraine is let into the room at all. As of publication, there is no answer to either question.