Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
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 enemy soil, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced 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 virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
