Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a ability afforded by current data. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone close by, part of a defensive team – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
