🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are released from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".

Nighttime Reality

As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.

With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The 28-point plan from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.

Every new initiative from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but averting a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its advantage.

Present Conditions

Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, 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 kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new proposals based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.