Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
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 across the border, a capacity afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame certain parties of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
