Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a premise well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: political desires to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are approaching, 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 rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to change the course of events, 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 capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
