Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through Western nations. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
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 circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
