Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity provided through current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
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 US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on previous concepts are approaching, 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 rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
