Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to replace in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward internal issues. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans 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 fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
