Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" 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 chain of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
