Ukraine’s security chief has indicated plans to arrange a meeting between President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump later this month as efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict continue.

Rustem Umerov, head of Ukraine’s national security council, said on Tuesday that both Washington and Kyiv had reached “a common understanding on the key terms” following recent talks in Geneva. The White House has yet to confirm whether such a meeting will take place.

At the same time, US officials are scheduled to meet Russian representatives in Abu Dhabi to further discussions on a potential peace framework.

Fighting persisted overnight, with Russian and Ukrainian forces exchanging strikes. Ukrainian authorities reported at least six civilian deaths in Russian attacks on Kyiv, while Russia said three people were killed in a Ukrainian strike in the Rostov region.

Umerov said Kyiv hopes Zelensky can travel to the US “at the earliest suitable date in November to finalise steps and formalize an agreement.” In a social media post, he described the ongoing negotiations as reaching agreement on “core terms” of the peace plan.

A US official confirmed Ukraine has “agreed to a peace deal” in principle, but noted that minor technical details remain unresolved. Analysts caution that the gap between Kyiv’s and Moscow’s acceptable terms remains wide, and the Kremlin is unlikely to endorse proposals Ukraine may accept.

European and Ukrainian leaders have criticized the initial US draft, saying it heavily favoured Russia. Counter-proposals from European powers reportedly removed any recognition of Russian-held territories, allowed Ukraine to maintain a larger army, and kept the possibility open for NATO membership. Zelensky welcomed these amendments, calling them “necessary steps to make a peace plan achievable.”

A Kremlin spokesperson rejected the modifications as “unconstructive,” while US officials confirmed continued dialogue with Russian representatives in Abu Dhabi. Russia’s foreign minister indicated Moscow has yet to receive a revised interim plan and expects it to reflect previous discussions between Trump and President Vladimir Putin.

Separately, a virtual meeting of European allies of Ukraine is taking place to review recent developments, with discussions focusing on security and coordination.

The escalation of strikes continued overnight. In Kyiv, a high-rise residential building in the Dniprovskyi district caught fire after a Russian attack, prompting evacuations and the rescue of 18 residents, including children. Another apartment complex in the central Pechersk district was also damaged and evacuated.

Ukrainian air defenses responded to the attacks as residents were urged to shelter. Authorities confirmed a major combined assault on the country’s energy infrastructure, involving more than 460 drones and 22 missiles.

NATO scrambled fighter jets over Romania to intercept drones near Ukraine’s border for the third time in four days, while Russian authorities reported intercepting 249 Ukrainian drones, including over the Black Sea and Kursk.

In southern Russia, the death toll from Ukrainian strikes rose to three in Rostov, with several others injured. Regional officials vowed to respond to the attacks. In Krasnodar, the governor described Ukraine’s overnight bombardment as “one of the most sustained attacks” the region had experienced.

The proposed US-Russia peace plan has been controversial, with European officials insisting it must prevent future aggression. The European Union’s foreign policy chief emphasized that any final agreement should ensure Moscow cannot launch further invasions and should not allow Russia to rejoin major international forums.

Since February 2022, Russia’s full-scale invasion has resulted in tens of thousands of military and civilian casualties, with millions displaced. Both sides continue to pursue negotiations even as hostilities intensify on multiple fronts.

The United States has indicated a broader strategy to support Nigeria in tackling attacks on Christians, following President Donald Trump’s directive to prepare for possible military action and his warning that America could intervene “guns-a-blazing” against extremist groups.

A senior official from the State Department said the approach goes far beyond military options. It includes diplomatic measures—such as the possibility of sanctions—alongside assistance programs and intelligence cooperation with the Nigerian government.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently met with Nigeria’s National Security Adviser to discuss steps to curb the violence. He shared photos from the meeting, a stark shift from Trump’s earlier threat to suspend all aid to Nigeria if authorities “continue to allow the killing of Christians.”

These renewed efforts align with Trump’s promise to limit foreign military entanglements at a time when the US security presence in Africa has decreased. Any direct military involvement in Nigeria would likely require redeploying forces from other regions.

Despite this, the president has intensified his criticism as Nigeria faces repeated attacks on schools and churches, with both Christians and Muslims targeted.

“I’m really angry about it,” Trump said during a radio interview on Friday. He accused Nigerian authorities of “doing nothing” and described the situation as “a disgrace.”
The Nigerian government has dismissed his claims.

A Comprehensive Strategy Emerges

After meeting with Nigeria’s security chief, Hegseth stated that the US is “working aggressively with Nigeria to end the persecution of Christians by jihadist terrorists.”

According to a Pentagon statement, Hegseth stressed the need for Nigeria to take swift and sustained action to protect vulnerable communities, while reaffirming America’s willingness to support Nigeria in degrading terrorist groups that pose threats to the US.

Jonathan Pratt, head of the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs, told lawmakers that potential military engagement is only one part of the broader plan. The issue is also under review by the National Security Council.

Pratt outlined a holistic strategy—covering security, policing, and economic support—as part of the US response to Trump’s designation of Nigeria as “a country of particular concern,” a move that could lead to sanctions.

Complex Roots of Nigeria’s Violence

Nigeria’s insecurity is driven by overlapping crises: extremist groups like Boko Haram target both Christians and Muslims; clashes between mostly Muslim herders and predominantly Christian farmers continue over land and water; and heavily armed bandits carry out kidnappings for ransom.

Recent attacks included mass abductions from a Catholic school on Friday and another school in a Muslim-majority area earlier in the week. Gunmen also killed two people at a church and kidnapped several worshippers.

The rise in violence has drawn increasing global attention, with public figures joining calls for action.

If Washington chooses to intervene militarily, the reduced US presence in the region—following withdrawals from Niger and other strategic points—means resources would have to be mobilized from places like Djibouti or smaller, mission-specific security hubs in West Africa.

Even with increased US involvement, analysts warn that military action alone cannot resolve a crisis that has built up over decades.

Judd Devermont, a senior Africa security expert, noted that limited airstrikes would likely fail to weaken extremist groups effectively.
“Nigeria’s insecurity has evolved over decades,” he said. “It will not be reversed overnight by an influx of US resources.”

He added that lasting solutions require economic investments, interfaith programs, and stronger policing—efforts that also depend on Nigerian cooperation.

Risks Surrounding Any US Intervention

Nigeria has rejected the idea of unilateral military action but remains open to assistance against armed groups.

Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province have entrenched themselves around the Lake Chad Basin, often moving across borders into neighboring Cameroon, Chad, and Niger.

Security experts warn that inserting US troops without a deep understanding of the conflict dynamics would be dangerous.
“If US forces enter without fully grasping the context, it exposes them to serious risks,” said Malik Samuel, a researcher at Good Governance Africa.

Nigeria’s own air operations have repeatedly resulted in accidental strikes on civilians.

To avoid worsening the situation, both governments would need a precise understanding of the overlapping causes of farmer-herder violence, banditry, and militancy—missteps could destabilize neighboring countries as well.