A more confident Zelensky arrives at NATO, buoyed by strikes inside Russia

Introduction: the shift in tone everyone is noticing

What observers are seeing in Ankara

According to the Straits Times, a more confident Zelensky is arriving at this year's NATO summit, a change in posture that several diplomats and journalists present in Ankara describe as noticeable from the very first exchanges. This is no longer the president of a country on the defensive showing up, but that of a nation that has learned, at great cost, to impose its own tempo on the battlefield.

This shift in tone is grounded in concrete developments documented in recent weeks: deep Ukrainian strikes targeting Russian military supply routes, along with repeated operations against strategic targets in occupied Crimea, territory illegally annexed by Moscow since 2014.

Why this breakdown is necessary

A shift in diplomatic demeanor, however visible, deserves to be analyzed with precision rather than accepted as a mere journalistic impression. This piece seeks to understand what, concretely, is fueling this new confidence, and what it means for the negotiations ahead.

A wartime leader finally showing an ounce of confidence is not arrogance, it is the earned result of three and a half years of relentless resistance. I'll say it plainly: Volodymyr Zelensky has earned every bit of this newfound assurance.

The deep strikes reshaping the military equation

Russian supply routes hit with precision

Ukrainian forces have, in recent weeks, stepped up strikes against the supply routes the Russian army uses to resupply its positions at the front. These operations, made possible by a combination of long-range drones and precision missiles developed partly at home, have disrupted Russian military logistics in a documented way.

This newfound ability to strike far behind enemy lines marks a significant evolution compared with the early years of the conflict, when Ukraine had far more limited means of projecting firepower beyond the immediate front line.

Occupied Crimea, a strategic and symbolic target

The repeated strikes against military installations in occupied Crimea carry both a strategic and symbolic dimension: strategic because the peninsula serves as a major logistics base for Russian operations in southern Ukraine, symbolic because it remains the first territory illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014.

Every successful strike in occupied Crimea strikes me as a reminder that this peninsula, stolen in 2014, remains Ukrainian territory in the eyes of international law. Ukraine is simply reclaiming what belongs to it.

What this new confidence changes in diplomatic posture

A negotiator speaking from a strengthened position

A leader arriving at the negotiating table after a series of documented military successes negotiates differently than a leader in a purely defensive position. Analysts cited by the Straits Times note that this dynamic directly influences the tone Zelensky takes in his exchanges with Western allies in Ankara.

This shift does not mean, however, that Ukraine has reached a decisive balance of power across the entire front: it instead signals a momentary shift in dynamic that strengthens the credibility of Ukrainian demands without guaranteeing a swift end to the conflict.

The effect on Western allies

This newfound assurance also appears to be affecting how Western allies perceive the situation, with several diplomats noting increased receptiveness to Ukrainian requests when they are backed by tangible military results rather than mere appeals for help.

I believe this dynamic reveals a simple but often forgotten truth: Western diplomacy responds better to a demonstration of resilience than to the invocation of suffering alone, however legitimate. It's cynical, but it's also the reality Zelensky has clearly absorbed.

What the missing interceptors reveal on the ground

A paradox accompanying this new confidence

This assurance displayed by Zelensky in Ankara coexists with a troubling reality documented on July 6: the total inability of Ukrainian defenses to intercept the Russian ballistic missiles fired at Kyiv that night. This paradox illustrates the two-speed nature of this war, in which deep offensive successes coexist with glaring defensive vulnerabilities.

It is precisely this contradiction that Zelensky must bring before his NATO allies in Ankara: an army capable of striking far behind Russian lines, yet still dependent on Western interception systems that remain insufficient to protect its capital from ballistic fire.

The interceptor request, a test of credibility for allies

Zelensky's new confidence should therefore not be read as a sign that Ukraine no longer needs Western help; quite the opposite: it comes with an urgent request for new interceptors, presented as the absolute priority of this summit in the eyes of the Ukrainian presidency.

How this specific request is handled, more than any statement of principle, will determine whether Zelensky's diplomatic momentum in Ankara translates into real protection for Ukrainian civilians in the weeks following the summit.

This contradiction should embarrass every Western capital present in Ankara: applauding Ukrainian strikes in Crimea while leaving Kyiv without adequate defense against Russian ballistic missiles means celebrating the offense while neglecting the protection of civilians.

The summit context amplifying this confidence

A highly anticipated meeting with Trump

The NATO summit in Ankara carries particular weight this year: Zelensky is set to meet Donald Trump in person, against a backdrop of parallel diplomatic developments, including a recent call between Trump and Vladimir Putin. This convergence of events places the Ukrainian president under particularly close scrutiny this year.

The confidence Zelensky is displaying could thus amount to a deliberate strategic response to this context, aimed at demonstrating that Ukraine remains a central actor in negotiations rather than a mere topic of discussion between great powers.

I note, with a mix of cautious relief and wariness, that Trump is for now maintaining the architecture of American military support. But recent history has taught us never to take that continuity for granted with this administration.

What this assurance must not obscure

Despite this new confidence, the humanitarian and military situation on the ground remains extremely difficult: Russian bombardments against civilian targets continue, as shown by the failed interception of ballistic missiles over Kyiv documented in early July.

Three and a half years of resistance that explain this moment

A trajectory that came at a heavy price

This new confidence does not appear out of nowhere: it is the culmination of more than three and a half years of Ukrainian resistance against a full-scale invasion, marked by considerable human losses, massive destruction of infrastructure, and an economic and social mobilization unprecedented on the European continent since the Second World War.

Every stage of this resistance, from the first weeks of the invasion in 2022 to the current deep strikes, has helped build the military and diplomatic credibility Zelensky now holds on the international stage.

The human cost accompanying every military success

It would nonetheless be wrong to celebrate this new confidence without recalling the immense human cost that accompanies it: every successful strike against Russian lines is part of a conflict that continues to cost Ukrainian lives, civilian and military, every single day.

I refuse to turn this new confidence into a triumphalist narrative that erases the human price of this war. Zelensky is right to display this assurance in Ankara, but it rests on a collective Ukrainian sacrifice we must never normalize.

What Western allies must understand about this moment

A window of diplomatic opportunity

This moment of Ukrainian confidence potentially represents a window of opportunity for Western allies: backing this positive dynamic with concrete commitments, notably on the interception systems Kyiv is requesting, could consolidate the gains achieved on the ground rather than letting them fade for lack of sufficient support.

Conversely, a timid Western response at this moment of Ukrainian momentum would risk squandering a tactical and psychological advantage hard-won after months of attritional warfare.

Trump's specific role in this equation

Donald Trump, whose administration has so far maintained the essential architecture of military support for Ukraine, could play a decisive role in turning this Ukrainian confidence into concrete diplomatic progress at this summit.

Trump's role in this equation remains, in my view, the most unpredictable factor of this entire summit. His military support holds for now, but his vague optimistic rhetoric about an imminent end to the war worries me as much as it reassures advocates of a quick ceasefire.

Verdict of this breakdown

A confidence grounded in verifiable facts

This breakdown confirms that the shift in posture observed in Zelensky ahead of the NATO summit in Ankara rests on concrete, documented developments: successful Ukrainian strikes against Russian supply routes and targets in occupied Crimea, rather than a mere communications strategy disconnected from the ground.

This confidence nonetheless remains confined to specific tactical successes, without fundamentally transforming the overall balance of power in a war that continues to impose a considerable human and material cost on both sides.

What to watch after Ankara

The true measure of this moment's impact will be seen in the weeks following the summit, through the concrete commitments made by Western allies and the evolving pace of Ukrainian strikes against Russian positions.

I say it without indulgence: confidence displayed in Ankara feeds no one in Kharkiv and protects no one in Kyiv. The final verdict on this summit will be read in weapons deliveries, not diplomatic smiles.

I will remain attentive, in the coming weeks, to whether this confidence translates into tangible Western commitments. An assured posture in Ankara is worth something, in the end, only if it turns into arms deliveries and renewed diplomatic support.

Conclusion: an earned confidence that must translate into action

What this moment really represents

This breakdown establishes that a more confident Zelensky arriving at NATO is neither a communications accident nor an artificial posture, but the reflection of real military successes achieved at the cost of a sustained war effort over more than three and a half years. This confidence deserves to be recognized for what it is: the fruit of a resistance that came at great cost.

It must never, however, obscure the fact that this war continues to kill Ukrainian civilians every week, and that true victory will only be measured against the standard of a just and lasting peace, not a mere shift in diplomatic tone.

The test still to come

The real test of this moment of confidence will play out in the weeks following the Ankara summit, when we learn whether Western allies managed to turn this positive dynamic into concrete, lasting commitments to Kyiv.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my declared biases

I sign this breakdown as an engaged columnist, not as a neutral journalist. I support the Ukrainian resistance, I consider Volodymyr Zelensky a figure of rare political courage, and I believe the West must remain the strategic center of gravity of the free world against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

My method and my limits

This breakdown relies exclusively on verifiable journalistic sources, cited and dated. I do not claim to know the exact scale of the damage caused by the Ukrainian strikes mentioned, nor the precise content of private exchanges during the Ankara summit. Where uncertainty remains, I say so explicitly.

Sources

Primary sources

Ukraine's Ministry of Defence — official statements

Presidency of Ukraine — speeches and statements by Volodymyr Zelensky

Army Inform — Ukrainian defense news

Secondary sources

The Straits Times — It's a different, more confident Ukraine president Zelensky coming to NATO this year, July 2026

Foreign Policy — coverage of the NATO summit in Ankara

The Guardian International — geopolitical coverage