Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Significant resources is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "resolution".
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 rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to abandon the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
