Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that European nations are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace 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 plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. 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 coming months, mainly require continued Western support.
