🔗 Share this article

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 – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Significant resources is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

Nocturnal Warfare

As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a capacity provided through up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.

Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every launch shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Soon after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.

Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.

Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This pattern will, undoubtedly, persist.

Tactical Assessments

It is easy to blame particular leaders of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to relinquish the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through diplomacy or military means, from believing that the current condition will not change more in its benefit in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, 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 endure, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – 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 attention does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a just a single week to kill the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. 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, current information leaks, all did their job.

While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity 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 ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.