Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capability provided through current data. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: several firings targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration functions according to a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, 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 hold out, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
