Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that European nations are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration works based on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms 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 highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging 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 kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are forthcoming, 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 founded on Moscow's terms and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
