Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through Western nations. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, damage and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington works based on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united 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 counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
