Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability enabled by current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, undoubtedly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: personal goals to negotiate peace 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 country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their mission will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
