Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the proposed articles of the latest plan. 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 achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults 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 much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
