Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is expended on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capability enabled by current data. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that European nations are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, mainly require continued Western support.
