Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that European nations are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention 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 proposal from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
