Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to alter the situation, 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 break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
