Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are released from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that European nations are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, discussion and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
