Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis 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 "substantial progress" 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 Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: maybe the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from Washington generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners 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 stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to terminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals 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 counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.
