Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are released from various governments. Significant resources is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations 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 demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
