Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the recent timeframe. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a premise well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on continued Western support.
