Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the recent timeframe. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a ability afforded by current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington operates on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal 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 leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
