Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains 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 revealed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to counter approaching aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, devastation and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, endure.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a principle familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not change more in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. 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 carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its benefit.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, 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 internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, 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 fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
