Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Significant resources is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – 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 carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts 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 based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
