Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a capability provided through current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern 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 American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it presently holds 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 evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments 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 stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
