Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington operates on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.
