Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, undoubtedly, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame certain parties of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, 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 defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
