🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".

Nocturnal Warfare

As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.

With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.

The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the months ahead.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.

While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.