Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: maybe the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.
