Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from Washington sparked intense emotion, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to abandon the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo 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 partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. 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 foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
