Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table 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 presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – 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 priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, 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 resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
