Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are released from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
