Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: several firings deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
