🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Significant resources is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "peace".

Nocturnal Warfare

As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.

Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.

Tactical Assessments

It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the near future.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.

Present Conditions

Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: personal goals to broker a ceasefire 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 unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely 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 latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.

While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.