Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity provided through current data. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely imported technology. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government'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 switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require continued Western support.
