🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare

The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability provided through current data. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by European allies.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.

Continuous Dangers

Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.

Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.

Tactical Assessments

It is convenient to criticize certain parties of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo 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 supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus 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 alter their fundamental strategy.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.