Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Immense energy is expended on managing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity 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 capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
