Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that European nations are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.
