Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Immense energy is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that European nations are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from American administration follows the same pattern: 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, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters 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 numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
