Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from Russian territory, a capability enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from assuming that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.
