On July 23, 2026, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met in Manila on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit.
What Was Discussed
Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s position: further arms deliveries to Kyiv are “unacceptable.” He also criticised what he called the destabilising policy of European states aimed at inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia. At the same time, he confirmed Russia’s readiness for a political and diplomatic settlement, reaffirming the proposals put forward by the U.S. side during the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska last August. Rubio, for his part, said Washington remained willing to play a constructive role in ending the conflict, but noted that the war had “impeded the ability of Russia and the United States to find areas of agreement on other topics.”
No breakthrough was announced. No new proposals emerged. The talks confirmed that the fundamental positions of both sides remain unchanged. Russia continues to insist that any settlement must address what it defines as its security concerns and the territorial realities created by the conflict, while Washington continues to support Kyiv and simultaneously seeks a diplomatic outcome that does not amount to a strategic defeat for the West.
The Escalation Beyond the Meeting Room
The Manila talks took place against the backdrop of intensified Ukrainian long-range strikes against Russian territory. During the same period, Ukrainian drones repeatedly targeted warehouses operated by Wildberries, Russia’s largest online retailer. The company, which processes roughly 20 million orders daily, has seen four of its logistics centres hit. At least nine people have been killed. Ukrainian authorities have claimed that these facilities store components for Russian military drones, a claim the Kremlin has denied. Regardless of the competing claims surrounding the facilities’ military role, the strikes represent a broader expansion of Ukraine’s target set beyond conventional military infrastructure.
Simultaneously, Ukraine has continued its campaign against Russian energy infrastructure, striking refineries and fuel depots. The cumulative effect has added further pressure to Russia’s domestic fuel distribution network. Russia, despite being one of the world’s largest oil producers, has faced growing strain on its domestic fuel market, with reports of regional shortages, higher prices and distribution problems. Airports around Moscow have been temporarily closed following mass drone strikes, and explosions have been heard in Crimea, including near Simferopol, Sevastopol, and Yalta.
A Strategy of Escalation
The timing of these strikes is significant. While Washington and Moscow were attempting to preserve diplomatic channels in Manila, Ukraine expanded strikes against infrastructure with high political and economic visibility inside Russia. The choice of targets and the timing of the attacks indicate that the objective extends beyond immediate military effects. Such actions also increase the political costs associated with any future compromise. They also illustrate the growing disconnect between diplomatic efforts pursued by Washington and the military strategy pursued by Kyiv.
The strategy appears to rest on a simple assumption: that increasing the economic and political costs for Russia will ultimately compel Moscow to negotiate from a weaker position. Whether such an approach is strategically sound remains highly uncertain. The more politically visible these attacks become, the less room the Kremlin has for compromise without appearing to retreat under pressure. Such strikes reinforce the perception that military pressure, rather than compromise, remains Kyiv’s preferred instrument. This makes any diplomatic opening politically harder to justify.
What This Means
The Manila meeting was a diplomatic gesture, not a turning point. The United States wants to find a way out of a conflict that is draining its resources and attention. Russia wants a settlement that recognises its security concerns and territorial realities created by the conflict. Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to escalate, calculating that increased pressure on Moscow can improve its negotiating position.
Whether such an approach accelerates negotiations or instead hardens Russian resolve remains one of the central strategic questions. The strikes on Wildberries, the attacks on refineries, and the drone operations targeting Moscow’s airports reflect a deliberate strategy of sustained escalation designed to increase the costs of continuing the war for Russia. The danger is that a strategy built around escalation may narrow the very diplomatic space required to end the conflict.
The central question is whether this approach will actually improve Ukraine’s negotiating position, or whether it will make a political settlement increasingly difficult to achieve. Escalation can alter the military balance, but it does not automatically create the political conditions required for a negotiated settlement. The Manila talks produced no breakthrough, because the gap between diplomatic engagement and battlefield escalation remains unresolved. Western policy now appears to operate on two increasingly divergent tracks: diplomatic engagement with Moscow and continued support for Kyiv’s strategy of military escalation. The wider the gap between them becomes, the more difficult it will be to sustain a coherent long-term strategy.
Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
