🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction

The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.

With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.

Every new proposal from US leadership follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, endure.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.

Present Conditions

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.

These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.

While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, 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 break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.