Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely delivered by Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on continued Western support.
