🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are released from various governments. Significant resources is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.

Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to substitute in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, persist.

Political Considerations

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its favour.

Existing Situation

Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These two forces are guiding negotiations.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.

While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.