🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction

The chain of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

Nighttime Reality

As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.

Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.

Ongoing Risks

Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the immediate future.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The 28-point plan from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.

Divergent Views

Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its benefit.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – 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 unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

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 fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity 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 capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.