🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare

The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Significant resources is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

Nighttime Reality

As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.

Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, continue.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.

Current Realities

Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Summary and Prospects

It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.

While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.