Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
