Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The comprehensive proposal from US administration sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration functions according to a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 continued Western support.
