Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a capability enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – 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 attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.
