Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Significant resources is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capability enabled by current data. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, 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, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
