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 – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a ability provided through current data. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
