Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability afforded by current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, undoubtedly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its favour in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, 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 endure, progressively conceding lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
