Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration functions according to a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
