Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability provided through current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – 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 initiative from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not evolve additionally in its favour in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
