Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a automatic firearm fired at a drone in the vicinity, 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 persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that European nations are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
