Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that European nations are evidently unprepared to replace in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does nothing to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: personal goals to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments 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 change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.
