Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments 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 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, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
