Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by current data. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
