Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a ability provided through current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus 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 approach from American administration follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration functions according to a assumption understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership'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 proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.
