Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability enabled by current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a need that European nations are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus 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 initiative from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This cycle will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
