Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington sparked intense emotion, discussion and serious worry – 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 initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to alter the situation, 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 break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require continued Western support.
