Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are issued from different nations. Immense energy is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a capacity provided through current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Soon after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its advantage.
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
It took a only one week to eliminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. 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 foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.
