🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by European allies.

Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Continuous Dangers

Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.

Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, endure.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.

Present Conditions

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal 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 very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These conflicting dynamics 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, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.

While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.