Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from various governments. 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 "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration functions according to a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
