Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are released from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, mainly require sustained allied backing.
