Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention 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 approach from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
