Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration follows the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
