🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Immense energy is devoted on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".

Nighttime Reality

As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.

Ongoing Risks

Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The comprehensive proposal from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.

Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, continue.

Tactical Assessments

It is convenient to criticize certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the near future.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its favour.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Summary and Prospects

It took a just a single week to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.

While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to alter the situation, 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 capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.