Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on managing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
