Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is devoted on managing 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 developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a capability provided through current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
