Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration follows the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a premise well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. 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 persist, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
