Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a ability enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely delivered by Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a assumption understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but averting a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
