Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to eliminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
