Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from different nations. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a ability enabled by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone close by, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Sadly, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that European nations are clearly incapable to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new proposal from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. 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 predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
