Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
