Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a capability provided through current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through Western nations. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame certain parties of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures 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 ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
