Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone close by, part of a defensive team – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches 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 founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
