Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool 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 capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This pattern will, undoubtedly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require continued Western support.
