Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington operates on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, 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 most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
