Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: 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, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly gives way to grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to negotiate peace 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 country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures 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 ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require continued Western support.
