🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

Nighttime Reality

As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.

Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.

Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.

Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.

The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These opposing factors are driving the talks.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new plans based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.