🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".

Nocturnal Warfare

As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity provided through current data. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to engage hostile cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by European allies.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: several firings targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its objective.

Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, destruction and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The 28-point plan from Washington provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.

Every new approach from US leadership follows the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, certainly, continue.

Political Considerations

It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.

The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not change more in its favour in the near future.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.

These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.

Assessment and Future

It took a just a single week to terminate the 28 points of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.