Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, 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 rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
