Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a capability provided through current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms 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 leader remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
