Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability provided through current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. 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 foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
