Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to substitute in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
