Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" 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 chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from US administration sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
