🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle 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: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Significant resources is devoted on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".

Nocturnal Warfare

As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.

Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings targeted at a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.

With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.

Every new proposal from Washington unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, undoubtedly, persist.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its favour in the near future.

Divergent Views

Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing lives and land but preventing a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its advantage.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: political desires to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.