Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
