Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a ability enabled by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal 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 leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
