Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably provided by partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing 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 win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it presently holds 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 thinking that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.
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 favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new plans 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 negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
