🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its countermove: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Diplomacy and Destruction

The succession of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "peace".

Nighttime Reality

As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a capability enabled by up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.

Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: seven people killed, devastation and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on international aid – a reliance that European nations are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and international summits.

Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is impossible to force Russia to abandon the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its advantage in the near future.

Divergent Views

Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a entire defensive failure until situations evolve in its benefit.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace 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 proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.

These two forces are influencing discussions.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.

While new plans based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms 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, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.