Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a ability enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
