Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from across the border, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions 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 unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
