Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its destination.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
