🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action

The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "peace".

After-Dark Attacks

As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by European allies.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably delivered by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its target.

With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, undoubtedly, endure.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, 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 initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a just a single week to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.

While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they remain united 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 ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.