Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: several firings targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
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 change more in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach 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 served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
