Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – 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: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, undoubtedly, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new initiatives 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 rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
