Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a capacity afforded by current data. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
