Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
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 equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – 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 initiative from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does nothing to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts 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, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require sustained allied backing.
