Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Immense energy is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a ability enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts 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 counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
