🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action

The chain of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".

After-Dark Attacks

As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching aerial threats streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from devastation and further power outages.

Continuous Dangers

Not long after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.

Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and heating outages in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, undoubtedly, continue.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, Washington does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.

Assessment and Future

It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.

While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.