Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, 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 rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.
