Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably delivered by allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push 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 tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
