🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a capability enabled by current data. From observation points, defense planes that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.

Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that European nations are demonstrably unable to substitute in the short term.

Failed Diplomacy

The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the months ahead.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its advantage.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.

These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.

While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, mainly require sustained allied backing.