Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a ability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to replace in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
