Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures 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 arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. 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 predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
