Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
