Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Immense energy is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a ability enabled by current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that European nations are evidently unprepared to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a assumption understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures 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 repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
