Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a principle well known to 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 unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does minimal to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government'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 initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity 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 capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.
