Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are released from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, undoubtedly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
