Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework 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 bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration works based on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason 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 carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new plans based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, 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 defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
