Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are released from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
