🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".

Nocturnal Warfare

As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.

Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the months ahead.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its benefit.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are guiding negotiations.

Summary and Prospects

It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.