Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
