Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through Western nations. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, 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 endure, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, mainly require sustained allied backing.
