Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a ability enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates 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 assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
