Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: 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 full day illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from US administration sparked intense emotion, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
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 counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
