Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that European nations are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from Washington unfolds according 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 secure success. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership functions according to a premise understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its favour in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
