Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from different nations. Considerable effort is expended on containing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from enemy soil, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely supplied through Western nations. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly gives way to grim resignation: possibly the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, preventing destruction from ruin and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a reliance that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, debate and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from US leadership unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a principle familiar among international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
