Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: several firings deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through Western nations. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a automatic firearm fired at a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans 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 rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
