Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This cycle will, undoubtedly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
