🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "settlement".

After-Dark Attacks

As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.

Continuous Dangers

Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, endure.

Strategic Calculations

It is easy to blame certain parties of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These two forces are guiding negotiations.

Summary and Prospects

It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.

While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.