Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through Western nations. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
