Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
