🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone close by, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.

Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.

Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – 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 stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.

Present Conditions

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: political desires to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.

While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations 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 reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.