Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative 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 conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability provided through current data. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington provoked deep reactions, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. 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 White House presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
