Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – 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 aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation 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 persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause 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 current events, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to terminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.
