Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the current period. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from across the border, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the months ahead.
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms 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 government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward internal issues. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
It took a only one week to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.
A tech journalist and digital strategist with over a decade of experience covering AI, cybersecurity, and startup ecosystems across Europe.