Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive 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 ability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit 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 outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions 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 national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
