Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "resolution".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, damage and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate certain reluctance to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.
