Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: personal goals to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to eliminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.
