🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Significant resources is expended on restraining particular approaches. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a capacity provided through current data. From observation points, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by European allies.

Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly gives way to grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Soon after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.

Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.

Political Considerations

It is convenient to criticize certain parties of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.

Divergent Views

Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.

Existing Situation

Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.

These two forces are guiding negotiations.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.

While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.