Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are released from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability provided through current data. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
