Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter 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 external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
