Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Significant resources is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals 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 fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.