Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into grim resignation: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution 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 country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
