Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a assumption understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the proposed articles of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
