Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate certain reluctance 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 break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.