🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its retaliation: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from different nations. Immense energy is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, war remains the primary tool for achieving "peace".

Nocturnal Warfare

As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity provided through timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.

Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its target.

Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.

Failed Diplomacy

The 28-point plan from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from US leadership follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, continue.

Tactical Assessments

It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington functions according to a premise 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 impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.

The challenge is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Moscow is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its favour.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not switch to internal issues. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are driving the talks.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a only one week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.

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 resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.