🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction

The succession of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Immense energy is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a capability afforded by current data. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons roared overhead – modern combat jets supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: several firings deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.

Persistent Threats

Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a unmanned aircraft somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it maintained course toward its objective.

With pauses, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, damage and utility failures in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those entire period illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a principle understood by international relations experts: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the areas that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the near future.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, slowly losing people and territory but avoiding a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its favour.

Present Conditions

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are driving the talks.

Conclusion and Outlook

It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the most recent proposal. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.

While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capacity to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.