Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Significant resources is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: several firings fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that European nations are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason 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 outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach 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 proposals based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.
