Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Significant resources is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame certain parties of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals 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 negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
