Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capability afforded by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise understood by 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 compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.
