Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Significant resources is expended on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability afforded by current data. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that European nations are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, undoubtedly, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
