Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: optimistic declarations are released from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
