Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is expended on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to replace in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The comprehensive proposal from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
