Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres 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 cycle will, undoubtedly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain 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 conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: political desires 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 unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. 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, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
