Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Significant resources is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: several firings deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, undoubtedly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration works based on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration believes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus 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 change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
