Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that European nations are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
