🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction

The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "peace".

After-Dark Attacks

As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.

Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: several casualties, damage and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The 28-point plan from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new proposal from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, endure.

Strategic Calculations

It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a assumption well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its favour in the months ahead.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Moscow is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – 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 unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These two forces are guiding negotiations.

Assessment and Future

It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, pushback 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 imminent, 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 founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. 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 foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.