Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, 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 defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
