Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Significant resources is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a automatic firearm opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame certain parties of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington works based on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. 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 predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
