🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The succession of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by Western partners.

Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. 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 transforms into grim resignation: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.

With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.

Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.

Strategic Calculations

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.

The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.

Present Conditions

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – 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 unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are driving the talks.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.

While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.