Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Immense energy is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration functions according to a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
