🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

After-Dark Attacks

As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.

Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Ongoing Risks

Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.

Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the near term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new proposal from Washington follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, persist.

Political Considerations

It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.

Divergent Views

Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.

Summary and Prospects

It took a only one week to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.

While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.