🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".

Nocturnal Warfare

As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by European allies.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.

Continuous Dangers

Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.

Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, certainly, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.

Divergent Views

Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.

Present Conditions

Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are driving the talks.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.

While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity 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 predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.