Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame certain parties of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.
