Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the announcement of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Significant resources is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and further power outages.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from US leadership follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration functions according to a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the current condition will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Divergent Views
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not switch to internal issues. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on continued Western support.
