Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity 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, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
