Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from US administration sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show specific hesitation to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
