Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Significant resources is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capability afforded by current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, 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 based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
