Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone close by, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: personal goals to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.
