🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity enabled by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.

Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings 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 secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.

Political Considerations

It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a assumption understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.

Present Conditions

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to internal issues. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are driving the talks.

Assessment and Future

It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.

While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.