Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from across the border, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to eliminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
