Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and utility failures 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 demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: personal goals to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
