Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Immense energy is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on continued Western support.
