Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from across the border, a ability enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a assumption understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation 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 supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.
