Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from US administration sparked intense emotion, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population 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 considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
