🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action

The chain of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: multiple launches deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.

Continuous Dangers

Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.

Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, undoubtedly, persist.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington operates on a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Summary and Prospects

It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.

While new plans based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.