Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that European nations are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, 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 coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.
