Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
