Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from across the border, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from US administration sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from US leadership follows the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the proposed articles of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
