Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, discussion and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – 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 unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
