Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: several firings deployed against a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new plans based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
