Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "peace".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely provided by Western nations. Every firing shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its destination.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration works based on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: personal goals to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, 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 political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
