Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration believes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. 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 predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
