🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action

The chain of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".

Nocturnal Warfare

As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a ability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: several firings deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from devastation and additional electricity failures.

Continuous Dangers

Soon after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably allied-provided weaponry. Sadly, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its target.

With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from US administration provoked deep reactions, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.

Every new approach from Washington follows the identical sequence: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, endure.

Strategic Calculations

It is easy to blame certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership functions according to a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.

The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.

These two forces are driving the talks.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.

While new plans based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.