Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Immense energy is expended on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
