Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Significant resources is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, 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 allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government assumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their reason 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 completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
