Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, 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 rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
