Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through Western nations. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that European nations are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, undoubtedly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, 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 fend off political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
