Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern 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 follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. 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 influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
