Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.