38 Killed in Russia’s Deadliest Ukraine Strike of 2026—As Washington Floats a Trump-Putin-Zelensky Summit
The Myla warehouse strike killed at least 38 and triggered an investigation into ammunition stored near homes. Meanwhile, CIA Director John Ratcliffe reportedly proposed a three-leader peace summit.
Russia’s strike on an ammunition warehouse in Myla, west of Kyiv, has become Ukraine’s deadliest single Russian attack of 2026. At least 38 people were killed, 52 injured and four remained missing as secondary explosions and fire tore through nearby homes. Almost simultaneously, Washington floated the highest-level diplomatic format possible: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky at one table.
The Myla site was not simply a civilian warehouse. Ukrainian officials acknowledged that it stored ammunition, reportedly including artillery shells, mines and drones. That makes the facility a military objective in principle. It does not end the legal or political inquiry because location, precautions, expected blast radius and civilian harm still matter.
Ukraine opened cases concerning official negligence. Storing large quantities of explosives beside residential areas can magnify an attacker’s strike into a neighborhood disaster. Russia remains responsible for choosing and executing its attack, while Ukrainian authorities remain responsible for avoiding foreseeable danger to their own civilians. Both questions can be examined without canceling the other.
Moscow presented the strike as part of retaliation for Ukrainian attacks on Russian warehouses, retailers and energy infrastructure. It has threatened “massive strikes” against Ukraine’s power system. Kyiv argues that Russia initiated the full-scale war and that its long-range campaign targets the military economy sustaining the invasion.
Civilian casualties have also been reported in Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory, including Belgorod. Each side uses the other’s attacks to justify expansion of its own target set. The resulting logic has no natural stopping point: a depot becomes dual-use logistics, a refinery becomes war financing and an electrical system becomes support for military production.
Against that background, the summit proposal is striking. Axios reported that CIA Director John Ratcliffe raised the idea during his quiet Moscow visit, where he met Russian intelligence chiefs Sergei Naryshkin and Alexander Bortnikov. U.S. officials later briefed Ukraine, according to the report.
A proposal is not an agreed meeting. Putin may prefer bilateral bargaining with Trump that treats Russia as a great power and pressures Ukraine from outside. Zelensky will resist any format in which terms are decided without Ukrainian consent. Trump may see a dramatic summit as proof of deal-making even before negotiators resolve the substance.
The agenda would be daunting: territorial control, ceasefire lines, sanctions, security guarantees, prisoners, deported children, reconstruction, NATO relations and enforcement. A leaders’ meeting can unlock decisions subordinates cannot make, but it can also collapse publicly and harden positions.
Timing cuts both ways. The high death toll can create urgency for diplomacy. It can also make talks politically toxic in Kyiv, where meeting Putin after a mass-casualty strike may appear to reward escalation. Moscow may believe military pressure improves its bargaining position. Ukraine may intensify strikes to show it cannot be coerced.
Ratcliffe’s intelligence channel offers discretion and direct access, but secret diplomacy raises democratic concerns. Neither intelligence agencies nor foreign leaders should decide Ukraine’s political future without transparent participation by its elected government. At the same time, confidential contact can test proposals before public commitments trap leaders.
The Myla investigation may become a rare point where Ukraine publicly examines its own wartime decisions. Accountability can strengthen resilience if it improves storage practices. Russia will exploit the findings propagandistically, but that is not a reason to avoid them.
Several summit formats are possible. A simultaneous trilateral meeting gives Ukraine formal equality but risks confrontation. Separate Trump meetings with Putin and Zelensky allow shuttle diplomacy but can encourage each side to believe Washington privately promised more. Working-level talks first are slower but more likely to produce text leaders can actually approve.
Any ceasefire also needs verification. Satellite monitoring, agreed notification channels and consequences for violations matter more than a handshake. Without enforcement, both sides may use a pause to rearm and blame the other for the first ambiguous explosion.
The dead at Myla make abstract diplomacy urgent, but they also warn against agreements built only around leaders. Local authorities, military planners and communities living beside depots must be part of the security reforms that prevent the next strike from becoming another mass-casualty chain reaction.
What to watch next
Watch whether all four missing people are found, the negligence investigation, Russia’s threatened energy strikes and Ukraine’s response. On diplomacy, look for acceptance by all three governments, a preparatory ceasefire or working-level agenda. Is the summit proposal a genuine path to negotiation—or a photo opportunity arriving while both armies believe the battlefield can still improve their terms?