🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

Nighttime Reality

As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capacity afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by European allies.

Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.

Ongoing Risks

Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.

Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.

Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.

The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its benefit.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.

These two forces are guiding negotiations.

Summary and Prospects

It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.

While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.