Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from Russian territory, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from US leadership adheres to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame certain parties of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing lives and land but averting a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to terminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
