Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.
