🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: a renewed assault of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: several firings fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly gives way to grim resignation: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and further power outages.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.

With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that European nations are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new approach from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the near future.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: political desires to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all achieved their purpose.

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 counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.