Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A Washington representative spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action
The chain of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Significant resources is expended on restraining specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a capability provided through timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to counter approaching guided weapons roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by European allies.
Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through allied countries. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a automatic firearm engaged a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its target.
Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: seven people killed, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, endure.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame certain parties of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. American leadership operates on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the situation will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is close to zero. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a mere seven days to eliminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate certain reluctance to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities 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 ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
