🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".

After-Dark Attacks

As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: several firings deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.

Failed Diplomacy

The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.

Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.

Divergent Views

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.

Present Conditions

Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.

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. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.

While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.