Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation 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 completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, 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 plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches 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 rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
