🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

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 able to track missile launches from across the border, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly gives way to grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.

Ongoing Risks

Following this, a automatic firearm fired at a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its destination.

Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.

Failed Diplomacy

The 28-point plan from US administration provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – 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 international summits.

Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.

The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.

Existing Situation

Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv'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 initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a just a single week to eliminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.

While new plans based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion 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 sustained allied backing.