Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity 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 defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
