🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Immense energy is devoted on restraining particular approaches. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.

Continuous Dangers

Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.

Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.

Every new approach from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.

Political Considerations

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a premise well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.

Existing Situation

Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.

While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.