Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes 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, diplomatic battles are waged: positive announcements are delivered 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".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, 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 break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
