Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms 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 supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on continued Western support.
