Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from various governments. Significant resources is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability enabled by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: several firings deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
