Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that European nations are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a premise well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – 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 unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
