Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Immense energy is devoted on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely delivered by Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further 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 close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, 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 defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
