Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: optimistic declarations are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is expended on containing certain initiatives. 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 unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a automatic firearm fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and serious worry – 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 initiative from American administration follows the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
