Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: personal goals to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
