Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a assumption familiar among 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 abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.
