Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration works based on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
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 American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
