Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a ability afforded by current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
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 Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
