Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that European nations are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from American administration follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: personal goals to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.
