Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are delivered from multiple capitals. Significant resources is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.
