Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, undoubtedly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
