🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capacity provided through current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.

Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The 28-point plan from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal 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 consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House believes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the result.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.

Current Realities

Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.