🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare

The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.

Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: several firings fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.

With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a reliance that European nations are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.

Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.

Summary and Prospects

It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.

While new proposals based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.