Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are issued from different nations. Immense energy is expended on containing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from devastation and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: personal goals to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to internal issues. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
