🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension sparked by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Rhythm of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are delivered from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "settlement".

After-Dark Attacks

As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from enemy soil, a capability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to resigned acknowledgment: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a automatic firearm opened up on a unmanned aircraft close by, part of a defensive team – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.

Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, damage and heating outages in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to substitute in the immediate future.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new initiative from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, no doubt, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is easy to blame particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a premise understood by international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The White House presumes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the coming year.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their reason to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.

Current Realities

Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful 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. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.

While new initiatives based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show particular unwillingness to modify developments, 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 overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.