🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare

The succession of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Significant resources is devoted on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

After-Dark Attacks

As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.

Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.

Continuous Dangers

Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.

With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the immediate future.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, discussion and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.

Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration operates on a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the months ahead.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, slowly losing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its benefit.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.