Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, undoubtedly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: personal goals to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
