Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are released from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal 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 government remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to broker a ceasefire 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 initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals 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 show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. 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 predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
