Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely delivered by Western nations. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. 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 sustained allied backing.
