Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Immense energy is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through Western nations. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, 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 multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from American administration follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push 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, endure.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason 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 carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. 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 foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
