🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates 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 current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.

Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably delivered by Western nations. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.

With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, endure.

Political Considerations

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a assumption understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its favour.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.

While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.