Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Significant resources is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that European nations are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does little to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts 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 endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on previous concepts 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 based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity 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 repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
