Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity provided through current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, 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 persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
