Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from across the border, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The 28-point plan from US administration provoked deep reactions, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This cycle will, certainly, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government presumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new plans 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 counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
