Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on restraining particular approaches. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, undoubtedly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington operates on a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit 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 result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to internal issues. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
