Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Significant resources is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to replace in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership follows the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to eliminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
