Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its destination.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their mission will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.
