Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by current data. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on continued Western support.
