Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
