Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage 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 demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that European nations are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
