Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from US leadership follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to abandon the territory 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 assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to eliminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments 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 reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
