🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are released from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "peace".

After-Dark Attacks

As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably provided by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.

Ongoing Risks

Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.

Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.

Tactical Assessments

It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration works based on a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.

Divergent Views

Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, 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 mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.

While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity 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 ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, mainly require continued Western support.