🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

Nighttime Reality

As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and additional electricity failures.

Ongoing Risks

Soon after, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.

Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.

Every new initiative from American administration follows the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, continue.

Political Considerations

It is tempting to accuse specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.

These two forces are guiding negotiations.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a only one week to eliminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.

While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations 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 show certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.