Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining particular approaches. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to replace in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, discussion and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. 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 influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments 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 demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.
