Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on managing specific proposals. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from Russian territory, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm opened up on a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Intermittently, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that neighboring countries are evidently unprepared to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The 28-point plan from US administration sparked intense emotion, discussion and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters 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, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership works based on a premise well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government assumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, individual motivations are entering the equation: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will modify their basic position.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all achieved their purpose.
While new initiatives based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect 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, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require sustained allied backing.
