Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame certain parties of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. 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, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require continued Western support.
