Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington works based on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives 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 fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
