Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be 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 exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
