Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by current data. From observation points, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone close by, part of a defensive team – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework 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 prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a assumption understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced 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 largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on continued Western support.
