Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration follows the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals 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 resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
