Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion 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 initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not shift further in its favour in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing lives and land but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
