Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from US administration sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be much harder after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, 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 based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
