Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
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. Considerable effort is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any plan 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 very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
