🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".

Nocturnal Warfare

As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.

Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and another blackout.

Continuous Dangers

Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.

Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.

Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.

Divergent Views

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Realistically, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.