Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension sparked by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This pattern will, undoubtedly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, 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 initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms 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, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
