🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare

The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows 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 exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and another blackout.

Continuous Dangers

Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.

With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.

Every new proposal from American administration follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation 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 continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.

Assessment and Future

It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.

While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.