Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
