Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Immense energy is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably delivered by allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, damage and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus 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 initiative from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
