Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge 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, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on established approaches 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 founded on Moscow's terms and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
