🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capability provided through current data. From observation points, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.

Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its target.

Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

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 experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a premise familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government presumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its advantage.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are guiding negotiations.

Assessment and Future

It took a mere seven days to terminate the proposed articles of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.