Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
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, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new proposals based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
