Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes progressed 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 capability provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone close by, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and profound anxiety – 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 proposal from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: political desires to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – 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 unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. 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, mainly require sustained allied backing.
