Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration functions according to a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing lives and land but preventing a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
