發生在8月29日凌晨的事件，讓基輔陷入一片驚懼與混亂。當時接連數小時的爆炸聲響徹整座城市，根據烏克蘭軍方數據顯示，俄羅斯出動598架無人機與31枚導彈，攻擊規模堪稱今年以來最大的一次。猛烈的轟炸讓基輔市區成為火海，不僅造成嚴重的基礎設施毀壞，更釀成重大人員傷亡。基輔市長維塔利·克里奇科在事後通報時指出，目前已有22人死亡、超過50人受傷，225棟住宅建築受損，甚至仍有平民可能被困於廢墟之下。基輔市政府隨後宣布，將8月29日定為全市哀悼日，悼念在這場空襲中罹難的民眾。

這場攻擊最引發國際爭議之處，在於外交設施的遭殃。歐盟駐烏克蘭總部、英國大使館與阿塞拜疆大使館在此次轟炸中受到波及，象徵著戰火已突破傳統的軍事界線。俄羅斯國防部則迅速發聲，聲稱攻擊目標僅限於烏克蘭的軍工企業與空軍基地，並強調「所有目標均被精準擊中」，同時否認有意攻擊平民與外交機構。這一說法與西方的指責形成強烈對立。美國駐烏克蘭特使基思·基洛格斯直言，俄軍的目標從來不是軍事設施，而是刻意摧毀外交機構，這已經嚴重違反國際法與戰爭規則。

這場爭論的核心，正是對「戰爭規範」的不同詮釋。對俄方而言，與烏克蘭軍方相關的「間接設施」也屬於合法的打擊對象；但在西方國家看來，外交機構受到《維也納外交關係公約》的明確保護，任何攻擊外交設施的行為都是對國際秩序的挑釁與踐踏。這種對立不僅加劇俄烏之間的衝突，也將更多國際力量捲入其中。

外交後續反應迅速而激烈。英國緊急召見俄羅斯駐英大使，表達嚴正抗議；歐盟則宣布召回駐莫斯科代表，以示對基輔的聲援；烏克蘭外長安德烈·謝皮拉更是公開譴責俄羅斯「蓄意違反國際法」。然而，在這股集體施壓的浪潮中，各方立場依舊存在微妙差異。歐盟強調外交設施受損，意在以「集體安全」的名義強化對烏克蘭的支持；而美國則試圖將此次襲擊與特朗普的「和平計畫」掛鉤，帶入自身國內政治的角力之中。

整體而言，基輔空襲不僅是俄烏戰爭的新一輪慘烈升級，更是國際關係的一次敏感轉折。對烏克蘭而言，這是一場沉重的打擊與悲劇；對歐美盟友而言，則是一個進一步拉攏共識、加強對俄施壓的契機；而對俄羅斯而言，這場行動不僅是軍事策略的一部分，更可能是對西方援助烏克蘭持續升級的直接回應。整個局勢的走向，將取決於國際社會能否在譴責與施壓之餘，找到真正能緩解戰爭烈度的政治解方。

On August 29, the Ukrainian capital Kyiv was shaken by one of the most devastating attacks in recent months, plunging the city into chaos and fear. According to Ukrainian military reports, Russia launched a massive overnight assault involving 598 drones and 31 missiles, making it one of the largest-scale operations since the war began. The bombardment lasted for hours, setting large parts of Kyiv ablaze. The human toll was severe: Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko confirmed that 22 people were killed, more than 50 others were injured, and 225 residential buildings were damaged. He also warned that more victims may still be trapped under the rubble. In response, the Kyiv municipal government declared August 29 a citywide day of mourning to honor those who lost their lives.

What drew particular international outrage was the collateral damage inflicted on diplomatic facilities. The European Commission’s headquarters in Ukraine, the British Embassy, and the Azerbaijani Embassy were all hit during the strikes, suggesting that the attack had gone beyond purely military targets. The Russian Ministry of Defense insisted that its strikes were solely directed at Ukrainian defense industries and air bases, claiming that “all targets were precisely hit” and denying any intention to strike civilians or diplomatic missions. However, this narrative was sharply contested by Western officials. U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg bluntly accused Moscow of deliberately targeting diplomatic institutions, calling it a blatant violation of international law and the rules of war.

At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental divergence in the interpretation of wartime norms. From Russia’s perspective, facilities linked to Ukraine’s military can be classified as legitimate targets. Yet for Western countries, diplomatic missions are explicitly protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and any attack on them constitutes a breach of international order and a dangerous precedent. This disagreement has not only intensified the Russia–Ukraine conflict but has also pulled in broader international forces.

Diplomatic fallout unfolded rapidly. The United Kingdom urgently summoned the Russian ambassador in London, while the European Union recalled its envoy from Moscow. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andriy Syipyla publicly accused Russia of “deliberate violations of international law.” These moves signaled collective pressure from Kyiv’s allies, but within the chorus of condemnation, subtle differences in priorities emerged. The EU highlighted the damage to diplomatic facilities, framing it as an attack on “collective security” and using it to rally stronger support for Ukraine. The United States, meanwhile, tied the strikes to discussions around Donald Trump’s “peace plan,” reflecting the interplay of domestic political agendas with the ongoing war.

In sum, the airstrike on Kyiv marks not only a brutal escalation in the battlefield but also a critical turning point in international diplomacy. For Ukraine, it represents a national tragedy and a test of resilience. For Europe and the U.S., it has become an opportunity to consolidate support and intensify pressure on Russia. And for Moscow, it appears both a strategic military move and a direct response to escalating Western aid to Kyiv. Where the conflict heads next will depend heavily on whether the international community can move beyond condemnation and pressure to craft a genuine political path toward de-escalation.