Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are released from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capability enabled by current data. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – 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 proposal from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.