Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The chain of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a reliance that European nations are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals 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 fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require sustained allied backing.
