Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability provided through current data. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to relinquish the territory that it presently holds 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 assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: political desires to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
