Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern 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 unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
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 resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together 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 repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
