Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.
