🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are released from various governments. Significant resources is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".

Nighttime Reality

As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.

Ongoing Risks

Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.

Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.

Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This cycle will, undoubtedly, continue.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.

Divergent Views

Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.

Present Conditions

Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.

While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united 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 ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.