🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

After-Dark Attacks

As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.

Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.

Continuous Dangers

Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its destination.

Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the immediate future.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.

Every new initiative from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, persist.

Political Considerations

It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.

Existing Situation

Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.