Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Immense energy is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from American administration adheres to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This cycle will, undoubtedly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses 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 diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
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 counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
