Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a ability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
