Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes 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: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a capability enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from Washington follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions 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 unite the population around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
