Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Immense energy is expended on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments 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 demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
