Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework 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 countermove: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are released from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a premise well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
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 counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.