Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capability afforded by current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that European nations are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration 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 believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
