Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability enabled by current data. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by Western nations. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from American administration follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires 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 unite the population 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 much harder after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.
