Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Significant resources is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from US administration provoked deep reactions, discussion and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration works based on a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
