Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from across the border, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been deployed to engage hostile aerial threats streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from US leadership follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a principle well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House assumes that it is impossible to force Russia to relinquish the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Moscow is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a complete military breakdown until circumstances change in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their attention does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
