Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a premise well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: personal goals to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
