Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat 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 Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Significant resources is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capability provided through current data. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a assumption understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity 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, mainly require sustained allied backing.