Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration follows the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington works based on a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
