Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Significant resources 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 "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention 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 US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This cycle will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.
