Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity afforded by current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
