Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from American administration follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, undoubtedly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – 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 unworkable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
