🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin 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 harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "peace".

Nighttime Reality

As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a ability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.

Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.

Every new initiative from Washington follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.

Political Considerations

It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration functions according to a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.

Divergent Views

Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.

Summary and Prospects

It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.