Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, damage and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a reliance that European nations are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, 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 hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements 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 alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
