Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is expended on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from across the border, a ability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
