Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on containing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from enemy soil, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been scrambled to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems engaged: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: maybe the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone close by, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its destination.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from US administration sparked intense emotion, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.
Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, undoubtedly, continue.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through statements or actions, from believing that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are nearing depletion. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to internal issues. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These two forces are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, 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 resist political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
