Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
