Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that European nations are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
