Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but averting a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
