Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on restraining particular approaches. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that European nations are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, 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 defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.
