Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from Russian territory, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The instant of fear quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun opened up on a aerial vehicle close by, part of a defensive team – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that European nations are evidently unprepared to replace in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from Washington provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from American administration follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of persistently promoting Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to surrender the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts 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 persist, progressively conceding lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Factually, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: 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 rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not shift toward domestic problems. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, 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 defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
