Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Significant resources is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: several firings deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – 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 bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: 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 rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals 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 reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
