🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction

The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.

Persistent Threats

Soon after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.

Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, endure.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.

The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are driving the talks.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity 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 capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.