Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are released from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its advantage in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: 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 modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures 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 ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.
