Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington operates on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to relinquish the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government'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 unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points 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 calming attempts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
