Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity enabled by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from US administration provoked deep reactions, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus 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 US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
