Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
