Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows 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 vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a ability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on continued Western support.
