🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are released from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

Nighttime Reality

As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.

Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.

With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.

Every new initiative from American administration follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, continue.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.

While new plans 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 fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.