Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that European nations are demonstrably unable to replace in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the identical sequence: 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, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
