🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from ruin and another blackout.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.

Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The comprehensive proposal from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, persist.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its favour.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.

These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on continued Western support.