Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is expended on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability enabled by current data. From observation points, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – most likely imported technology. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: several casualties, damage and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that European nations are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a assumption familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.
