🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction

The succession of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

Nighttime Reality

As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a ability afforded by current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.

Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework 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 multilateral gatherings.

Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.

Strategic Calculations

It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Moscow is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.

Conclusion and Outlook

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

While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and improve their protective measures 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 capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.