Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: hopeful statements are issued from multiple capitals. Significant resources is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, persist.
Political Considerations
It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: political desires to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new proposals based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
