Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a ability enabled by current data. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not shift toward internal issues. And although their mission will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
