Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded 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 capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
