Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
