Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate 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 international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.
