Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity provided through current data. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, undoubtedly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing people and territory but averting a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals 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 show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
