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 – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are released from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability afforded by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
