Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new plans based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
