Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
