Russia's latest attack on Kyiv was one of the most intense barrages of the war so far in 2025. Overnight, Russian forces launched 68 ballistic missiles and 350 drones at Ukraine's capital and surrounding regions, killing at least 12 people in Kyiv itself and five more in the wider Kyiv region. Ukrainian air defenses managed to intercept 37 of the missiles — but not a single ballistic missile was stopped. That failure is now at the center of an urgent conversation at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, where leaders are facing hard questions about what it will actually take to keep Ukraine in this fight.

What Happened in Russia's Latest Attack on Kyiv?

This was the second massive strike on Kyiv in just four days. The previous attack, on Thursday, was the deadliest on the capital so far this year, killing at least 30 people. Sunday night's barrage was slightly smaller in scale but no less terrifying for the Ukrainian people living through it.

Ukraine's air defense network intercepted 37 of the 68 missiles launched, but none of the ballistic missiles were brought down. Of the 350 drones deployed, 18 made it through. The human toll — 12 dead in Kyiv, five more in the surrounding region — underscores just how much damage even a partially successful defense still allows.

President Zelensky had publicly warned on Sunday that a major attack was incoming. His warnings went unheeded by Moscow, and now he's arriving at the NATO summit with the wreckage as his opening argument.

Why Couldn't Ukraine Stop the Ballistic Missiles?

The answer, according to Zelensky himself, is straightforward and alarming: Ukraine has run out of interceptor missiles. He stated openly that the failure to shoot down any of the ballistic missiles was a direct result of an insufficient supply of the weapons needed to counter them.

This isn't a technical failure — it's a supply chain failure. Russia has been adapting, deploying faster, jet-propelled missiles that are harder to intercept than earlier models. Ukraine's air defense systems, including Patriot batteries, are effective but are being depleted faster than they can be resupplied. Every ballistic missile that gets through isn't just a military setback; it's a signal that Ukraine's defensive shield has holes in it that are getting harder to patch.

The math is brutal: Ukraine is burning through interceptors defending itself, and without a steady pipeline of resupply from NATO allies, those defenses will continue to degrade. That's the core crisis being brought to Ankara.

What Is on the Table at the 2025 NATO Summit?

The NATO summit in Ankara is covering three major areas: defense cooperation and investment among member states, the capacity to produce weapons, and Ukraine's immediate military needs. Two out of three of those agenda items are directly tied to what happened in Kyiv overnight — which makes this summit anything but routine.

Key items include:

  • Air defense resupply for Ukraine — Getting more interceptor missiles into Ukrainian hands before the defensive gap widens further.
  • A Defense Investment Fund — A financial commitment expected to run into the tens of billions of dollars to sustain Ukraine's war effort through this year and next.
  • Patriot missile production licenses — Zelensky has been pushing for Ukraine to be allowed to manufacture Patriot missiles domestically. That request faces significant political headwinds, and it's unclear whether allies will agree.
  • NATO member defense spending — The Hague Declaration set a target of 5% of GDP by 2035. Trump has been pressuring allies hard on this, and countries like Spain that have not committed to hitting that target could find themselves in the crosshairs.

Democratic Congressman Brad Schneider, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, put it plainly: supplies have been diminished, in some cases depleted, and Russia is continuing its illegal assault on a sovereign nation. The summit needs to produce real commitments, not just declarations.

What Did Trump and Putin Talk About on July 4th?

Over the July 4th weekend, President Trump spoke by phone with both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. The timing — on the eve of a NATO summit and in the middle of one of the war's most intense attack sequences — was no accident.

Putin's call with Trump appears to have been a deliberate attempt to reframe the narrative. Russia's foreign ministry followed up by claiming that Ukraine's drone strikes on Russian territory were "terrorist attacks" and asserting that Russia was "confidently advancing" on the front line. The framing is classic information warfare: position Russia as the victim and Ukraine as the aggressor, and hope that messaging lands with an American president who has shown sympathy to both sides at different moments.

Trump has recently shown more sympathy toward Ukraine's position, which likely triggered the outreach from Moscow. The question now is whether Putin's provocation — launching a massive attack on Kyiv right before Trump walks into a NATO summit — will push Trump toward stronger support for Ukraine, or whether it will reinforce his desire to broker a quick settlement regardless of the terms.

Does Zelensky Want Patriot Missiles From NATO?

Yes — and it goes further than just receiving them. Zelensky wants Ukraine to be licensed to manufacture Patriot missiles inside Ukraine. The logic is sound: if Ukraine can produce its own interceptors domestically, it breaks the dependency on external supply chains that are currently its biggest vulnerability.

That request is unlikely to be granted at this summit. The political and industrial complications around transferring Patriot manufacturing licenses are significant, and the US defense industry has its own interests in maintaining production exclusivity. But Zelensky is pressing the case hard, and the overnight attack on Kyiv — with its vivid demonstration of what happens when interceptors run dry — is exactly the kind of evidence he needs to make his argument in Ankara.

How Is Europe Responding to Trump's NATO Demands?

Europe is caught in a difficult position. On one hand, NATO's European members have been ramping up defense spending — many have made significant strides since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. On the other hand, Trump's demand for 5% of GDP is an extraordinarily high bar. Most European economies are nowhere near it, and the political will to get there by 2035 varies enormously across the alliance.

Countries like Spain have not made credible commitments to hit the target, and they could face pointed pressure from Trump during the summit. The UK, still struggling to ramp up its own defense budget, may also find itself in an uncomfortable spotlight — potentially making this a difficult moment for outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The deeper challenge for Europe is one of sequencing. European NATO members know they need to build more strategic autonomy — the ability to defend themselves without total reliance on US enablers. But moving too visibly in that direction risks signaling to Washington that it's okay to step back. Europe cannot afford for the US to withdraw prematurely. The short-term priority is keeping America committed while laying the groundwork for a more self-sufficient alliance over the longer term.

How Bad Is the Russia-Ukraine Escalation Right Now?

It's escalating on both sides. While Russia hammered Kyiv with missiles and drones, Ukraine launched its own strikes: Russia's Ministry of Defense reported intercepting 519 Ukrainian drones across multiple regions. One major target appears to have been the Leningrad region — home to Saint Petersburg — where the governor reported damage to infrastructure around key oil ports. Rolling power outages were also reported in Russian-occupied Crimea.

This tit-for-tat dynamic is becoming the defining feature of the war's current phase. Both sides are hitting harder, deeper, and more frequently. Russia has grown more sophisticated — faster missiles, harder to intercept. Ukraine is striking back at Russian infrastructure in ways that were considered off-limits earlier in the conflict.

The concern among analysts is that this escalation spiral, absent a serious diplomatic intervention, will keep grinding forward — with the civilian populations on both sides bearing the cost. The NATO summit in Ankara represents one of the clearest opportunities in months to alter that trajectory. Whether the alliance — and its most unpredictable member, the United States — will seize that opportunity is the question hanging over everything.