Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from across the border, a ability enabled by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: several firings deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government assumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
