A night of missiles and drones over Kyiv underscores the brutality of Russia’s air campaign, but on the battlefield Ukraine is showing that Moscow’s enormous expenditure of men and weapons has not delivered the victory it expected.

I’m writing this from Kharkiv after a night in Kyiv that offered a firsthand reminder of what Ukrainians have been living with for years.

Seconds after I finished my broadcast from downtown Kyiv yesterday, the air-raid sirens started again. They continued into the evening, and later the sound of explosions carried through the night. By morning, smoke was rising over parts of the city.

According to the information available to us, Russia launched roughly 200 missiles and drones against Kyiv and other areas of Ukraine during the overnight attack, with Ukrainian defenses reportedly intercepting the majority of them. Several weapons still reached Kyiv, leaving two people reported dead and others injured.

Those numbers can become abstract until you see what they mean on the ground. One piece of footage from the aftermath showed a woman emerging from a shelter with her baby after spending the night underground. For millions of Ukrainians, this is not a dramatic scene from television. It is ordinary life in a country that has been dealing with Russian missiles and drones for years.

Russia’s War Against Ukraine’s Infrastructure

Kyiv was not the only target.

Russian attacks struck locations across the country, including areas in northeastern Ukraine, where we are now traveling. One attack hit a passenger train, although passengers were reportedly evacuated before the strike and no one aboard was injured. The train appeared to have protective anti-drone barriers installed around portions of it—a remarkable illustration of how deeply the drone war has entered civilian life.

Another strike destroyed a grocery warehouse in Kyiv. These are the kinds of places that matter enormously during wartime because ordinary distribution networks are already under tremendous strain, particularly closer to the front.

We are traveling with Hope for Ukraine, a Christian humanitarian organization based in Lviv whose teams drive toward front-line communities carrying food and other essential supplies. When stores, warehouses and transportation networks are damaged, organizations like this become even more important to civilians trying to remain in their communities.

The destruction is real, and the human cost is real. But there is another side of this war that can be missed when the nightly images of explosions dominate the news.

Russia is inflicting enormous damage on Ukraine, but that does not necessarily mean Russia is winning.

Heavy Bombardment, Limited Results

From inside Kyiv, the contrast is striking.

The city remains alive. Traffic moves. Businesses operate. People go to work. Buildings damaged earlier in the war have been repaired, sometimes so completely that someone arriving today would never know they had once been struck.

That resilience matters because Russia’s air campaign appears designed not merely to destroy individual targets, but to exhaust Ukraine—to make daily life so dangerous and difficult that eventually the population loses the will to continue.

So far, I’m not seeing that happen.

Even after a major night of attacks, most of Kyiv remained standing and functioning. Ukrainians repaired damage from previous strikes and continued with their lives. The objective may be to break the population psychologically, but the people I have spoken with continue to view this as an existential fight. For them, surrender is not simply a matter of accepting unfavorable political terms. They believe the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation is at stake.

Meanwhile, Russia has paid an extraordinary price for comparatively limited territorial gains.

Ukrainian battlefield assessments claim extremely heavy Russian personnel losses during the summer and throughout the war. Those figures come from the Ukrainian side and should be treated accordingly in an active conflict, where casualty numbers are notoriously difficult to verify independently. What is clearer is that Russia has spent enormous amounts of manpower and equipment fighting for relatively small changes to the front line.

In some areas, Ukraine is now claiming to have reversed recent Russian advances. Around Lyman in eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian forces have reportedly pushed Russian positions back, part of what Kyiv describes as a broader series of battlefield gains.

That does not mean Ukraine is suddenly winning easily. Nothing about this war is easy. Ukraine faces serious shortages, particularly when it comes to the expensive interceptor missiles needed to defend its cities against Russia’s relentless aerial attacks.

But it does mean the familiar narrative that Russian victory is inevitable deserves much closer scrutiny.

Ukraine’s Air-Defense Problem

One of Ukraine’s most urgent needs remains air defense.

Russia can send large numbers of relatively inexpensive drones alongside more sophisticated missiles, forcing Ukraine to expend valuable interceptors to defend cities, infrastructure and civilians. No country can indefinitely shoot down every incoming weapon, particularly when some defensive missiles cost far more than the drones they are destroying.

Ukraine is therefore racing to develop cheaper and more sustainable ways of defeating Russian drones while continuing to depend on Western systems for the most dangerous threats.

During the broadcast, I discussed reports that the United States is preparing additional Patriot interceptors for Ukraine. If that happens, those weapons will be badly needed.

But Ukraine’s long-term survival cannot depend solely on intercepting whatever Russia launches. The country also needs the ability to impose costs on the machinery producing and launching those attacks.

Ukraine is increasingly doing exactly that, striking military and infrastructure targets deeper inside Russia and forcing Moscow to devote resources to defending territory that once seemed safely removed from the battlefield.

Peace Talks Remain Far From Peace

All of this is happening while diplomatic efforts continue.

The problem is that Russia and Ukraine remain extraordinarily far apart on what an acceptable peace would actually look like. Meetings and negotiations can create the appearance of movement, but handshakes and business proposals do not erase the fundamental questions at the heart of this war.

Former U.S. Army commander Ben Hodges was sharply critical of the latest diplomatic efforts, arguing that little meaningful progress had been made and that Russia continued attacking Ukrainian civilians even as discussions were underway.

That skepticism is understandable from where I am sitting.

This is not simply a business dispute where both sides need the right financial incentive to sign an agreement. Ukrainians see the conflict through generations of history and through what they have experienced since Russia’s invasion. Russia, meanwhile, continues to insist that its security and historical claims justify its actions.

Those positions are not going to disappear because somebody arrives with a better economic proposal.

What the War Looks Like From Here

There is a temptation when watching this war from thousands of miles away to reduce everything to maps, casualty figures, weapons systems and political arguments.

Those things matter. But they are not the whole story.

The war is also a mother carrying her baby out of a shelter after another night of explosions. It is passengers being evacuated from a train because a drone may be coming toward them. It is humanitarian workers loading vehicles with food and driving toward communities where normal supply chains have been destroyed.

And it is millions of people getting up the next morning and going back to work.

Russia can continue firing missiles and drones into Ukraine, and Ukraine will continue desperately trying to shoot them down. But after spending time here again, one thing becomes difficult to ignore: bombing a country and defeating it are not the same thing.

Russia has demonstrated that it can inflict tremendous suffering on Ukraine. What it has not demonstrated is that this suffering will convince Ukrainians to surrender.

I’m heading farther east toward Kharkiv and closer to the front, where we’ll continue reporting on what is actually happening here—not simply what politicians in Washington, Moscow or Brussels say is happening.

There is no substitute for seeing it firsthand.

Today in Kyiv, a Russian strike drone hit the building housing the We Are Ukraine television channel while journalists were broadcasting live. The newsroom and offices were damaged, and at least five people have been reported injured.

As I prepare to head into Ukraine to report from the ground myself, this one hits particularly close to home. Journalists working there understand that covering this war means operating in a place where the distinction between the battlefield and civilian life has become increasingly thin.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded to the attack today with the following statement:

Today, Russia struck the media and journalists. A strike drone attacked the building of the We Are Ukraine TV channel of the United News telethon. Right in the middle of the day. Just when journalists were on air. The building was partially destroyed. All necessary services are working at the site. The State Emergency Service employees have already extinguished the fire. As of now, five people are known to have been injured. Unfortunately, the number may still increase.

“Shaheds” against the media is a new page in Russia’s degradation, and there must be a reaction from Europe and the world to this. No strike on Ukraine and Ukrainians – against life – can be left unpunished. Russia must be stopped, and this is only possible through joint efforts.

What do you think? Does an attack like this represent a deliberate attempt to intimidate journalists and control what the world sees from Ukraine — and if so, what should the international response be?

A new round of American attacks on Iranian military infrastructure signals that the conflict is far from over, while Tehran continues retaliatory strikes and pressure mounts over the future of the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States and Iran have entered another significant round of direct military confrontation, with American forces carrying out a broad series of strikes against Iranian military targets after Tehran launched attacks against U.S. positions in the region.

The latest exchange represents one of the most substantial periods of direct U.S.-Iran fighting in months. Iran retains the ability to launch missiles and drones against American forces and neighboring countries, while Washington is increasingly targeting the infrastructure Tehran needs to continue those attacks. At the same time, the Strait of Hormuz remains at the center of the conflict, with consequences extending far beyond the battlefield and into global energy markets.

According to U.S. Central Command, American forces struck Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps air-defense positions, radar systems, maritime assets, communications facilities and mine-laying capabilities.

The escalation began after the United States struck Iranian launchers reportedly preparing to deploy mines into the Strait of Hormuz. Iran subsequently targeted U.S. positions in Jordan, prompting Washington to respond with a much larger wave of strikes against sites along Iran's coast.

Iranian projectiles were also launched toward Jordan during the fighting, although most were intercepted and the remainder reportedly landed in unpopulated areas without causing casualties. The attacks demonstrate an important reality: despite the damage Iran has sustained, its military retains the ability to threaten American forces and regional partners.

One of the most significant developments in the American response was the targeting of Iranian-owned tankers. CENTCOM footage appeared to show strikes concentrated near the engine areas of the vessels, potentially disabling them while reducing the risk of a major oil spill.

The message appears straightforward: if Iran threatens commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, its own maritime assets may increasingly become vulnerable.

The Battle Over the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz is rapidly becoming one of the most important pressure points in this conflict.

Iran is reportedly attempting to condition passage through the strait on the payment of war reparations. A statement attributed to a spokesman for the Iranian Parliament's National Security Commission said countries, companies and other entities deemed responsible for damage to Iran could be denied permission to transit unless they reach an agreement with Tehran over compensation.

Whatever Iran's practical ability to enforce such demands, Tehran understands that the strait gives it leverage far beyond its conventional military strength. Any serious disruption immediately affects shipping, insurance rates, energy markets and ultimately consumers around the world.

That creates a strategic problem for Washington. American strikes are clearly degrading Iranian radar systems, missile infrastructure and maritime capabilities, but if each Iranian attack produces only a limited American retaliation followed by another pause, Tehran may conclude that it can absorb the punishment.

One of the most revealing aspects of Iran's behavior is what it has not done. Iran still possesses weapons capable of reaching Israel, yet during this latest exchange it has concentrated heavily on American and regional targets.

The likely explanation is deterrence. Iranian leaders understand that a major attack against Israel could provoke an Israeli response considerably more severe than the calibrated exchanges Tehran has experienced with the United States.

Whether one agrees with Israel's strategy or not, the lesson is important: effective deterrence does not require an adversary to like you. It requires that adversary to believe the consequences of crossing certain lines will be unacceptable.

Can Pressure Produce Change Inside Iran?

The other major question is what happens inside Iran as military and economic pressure grows.

President Donald Trump has publicly questioned when the Iranian people will rise against their government. But calling for an uprising is much easier than creating the conditions in which one can succeed.

Iranian opposition figure Reza Pahlavi argued that the Iranian people themselves must ultimately provide the "boots on the ground," rather than foreign troops. But he also warned that civilians cannot reasonably be expected to confront heavily armed regime security forces without protection and a coherent strategy.

Pahlavi criticized the mixed message created when outside powers encourage Iranians to resist the government while simultaneously discussing negotiations with that same government. In his view, any serious attempt at political change would require a clear strategy that protects protesters and encourages defections from Iran's military and security services.

That gets to the heart of the problem. Washington must ultimately decide what it wants: containment, deterrence, negotiation, the destruction of Iran's ability to threaten its neighbors, or the end of the current regime. Those are very different objectives.

Russia's War Is Increasingly Reaching Europe

While attention remains focused on Iran, another dangerous confrontation continues to develop in Europe.

Suspected Russian-linked sabotage has raised increasingly serious questions about where covert aggression ends and open conflict with NATO begins. Recent incidents discussed in Europe include attacks against power infrastructure in Germany, including a projectile described as Russian in origin that may have been smuggled into Germany before being launched.

European governments are promising additional pressure on Moscow, while Germany is preparing further military support for Ukraine, including additional IRIS-T air-defense capabilities. But Europe faces a larger strategic problem. If Russian-directed sabotage is occurring across NATO territory, sending additional weapons to Ukraine may eventually prove insufficient as the only response.

Former British Army officer Michael Clarke argued that Ukraine must prevail and that Europe may increasingly have to ensure that outcome without assuming the United States will carry most of the burden. The larger issue is whether Moscow will be allowed to demonstrate that sustained military aggression can eventually succeed if an aggressor is simply willing to continue long enough.

That is not only Ukraine's problem. It is Europe's problem, and ultimately it is an American problem as well.

Ukraine Takes the War Deeper Into Russia

Ukraine, meanwhile, is increasingly demonstrating that Russia cannot wage a devastating war against its neighbor while assuming its own territory will remain insulated from the consequences.

President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned civilian aviation about the risks of operating over Russia as Ukrainian drone operations expand deeper into Russian territory. Dozens of flights were reportedly canceled following concerns about the safety of Russian airspace.

There is an obvious symmetry here. Ukrainian civilian aviation has effectively been shut down since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion. Ukrainians have spent years living with missile attacks, drones, destroyed infrastructure and the constant disruption of ordinary life.

Now some of those consequences are reaching Russia itself.

The scale of the fighting remains staggering, with Ukrainian sources reporting enormous monthly Russian personnel and equipment losses. Those figures should be understood as battlefield assessments from one side of an active war rather than independently verified totals, but there is little question that both countries continue paying an extraordinary price.

The resilience of ordinary Ukrainians remains just as striking. One video I showed during the broadcast captured a woman sitting at a piano inside her damaged home after a drone attack and beginning to play. It was a small moment in an enormous war, but it illustrates something statistics cannot: after years of destruction, the determination of Ukrainians to continue has not disappeared.

A More Dangerous Phase

The wars involving Iran and Russia are separate conflicts, but both expose the same strategic problem confronting the West.

Deterrence works only when threats are backed by credible consequences.

Iran continues testing how much damage it can inflict on American forces and regional partners without provoking a decisive response. Russia continues testing how far it can extend aggression beyond Ukraine without triggering a fundamentally different reaction from NATO.

The danger of escalation is real. But there is also danger in allowing adversaries to conclude that escalation works.

The United States has demonstrated that it can inflict enormous damage on Iranian military infrastructure. Ukraine has demonstrated that Russia's size does not make it immune from attack. Europe and the United States possess tremendous economic and military power.

The question is whether that power will be organized around a coherent strategy.

I'm heading to Ukraine now, where I'll be reporting from the ground on what this war actually looks like after years of fighting, what Russia's campaign is doing to Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, and how Ukrainians themselves see the next phase of the conflict.

There is plenty of commentary about these wars from thousands of miles away. In the coming days, I'll be bringing you what I can see and learn firsthand.

What are your thoughts? Let me know in the comments below.