Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Immense energy is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates 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 immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from Washington follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not shift further in its favour in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow 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 maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations 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 flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
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 counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures 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 repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on continued Western support.
