🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: positive announcements are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by European allies.

Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.

Persistent Threats

Soon after, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its target.

Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a reliance that regional partners are demonstrably unable to replace in the immediate future.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new proposal from Washington adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, certainly, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is tempting to accuse certain parties of consistently pushing Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a principle familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.

The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.

Present Conditions

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.

These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.

Summary and Prospects

It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.

While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, 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 break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.