Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are approaching, 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 show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
