Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a ability provided through current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – 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 international summits.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington operates on a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the latest plan. 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, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives 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 fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
