🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread 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 diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The chain of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Significant resources is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".

Nighttime Reality

As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.

Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the immediate future.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.

Every new approach from US leadership follows the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, persist.

Tactical Assessments

It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington works based on a premise well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms 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 leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.

Existing Situation

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.

These two forces are guiding negotiations.

Assessment and Future

It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.