Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive 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 persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv'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 unworkable, so that their focus does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.
