Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are released from various governments. Immense energy is expended on managing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a capability provided through current data. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through Western nations. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
