Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: optimistic declarations are released from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration 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 earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration works based on a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to terminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
