Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from enemy soil, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This cycle will, undoubtedly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse certain parties of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. US administration operates on a premise 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 presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the situation will not change more in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its favour.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a ceasefire. Now, personal considerations are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new plans based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require continued Western support.
