Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.
