🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction

The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are released from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".

Nocturnal Warfare

As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.

Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.

Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.

Strategic Calculations

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.

The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Kyiv'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 plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These two forces are driving the talks.

Assessment and Future

It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.

While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.