Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.
