🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare

The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from multiple capitals. Significant resources is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".

Nocturnal Warfare

As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by European allies.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.

Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that European nations are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.

Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.

Tactical Assessments

It is easy to blame certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.

Existing Situation

Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.

Summary and Prospects

It took a only one week to eliminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.