Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a need that European nations are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
