Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to relinquish the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: political desires to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
