Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
