Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame certain parties of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its favour in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
