Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a assumption understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.
