🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is expended on restraining particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the key method 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 equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely supplied through Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.

With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.

Every new approach from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, persist.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.

These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.

Summary and Prospects

It took a just a single week to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.