Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration functions according to a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.
