Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
