🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "peace".

Nighttime Reality

As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability provided through current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to counter approaching cruise missiles streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.

Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the immediate future.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership 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 multilateral gatherings.

Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, certainly, persist.

Political Considerations

It is convenient to criticize certain parties of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House assumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.

The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive 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 persist 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 civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.

While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.