Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is expended on restraining particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably supplied through allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a assumption understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: personal goals to mediate resolution 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 country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals 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 reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
