🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency caused by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its retaliation: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of opposing developments captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are waged: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is devoted on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "peace".

After-Dark Attacks

As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is capable of detecting rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.

Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches fired to intercept a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: perhaps the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its target.

Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.

Every new approach from Washington unfolds according to the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is convenient to criticize specific actors of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a premise familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration presumes that it is impossible to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while accepting these circumstances, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from assuming that the status quo will not change more in its advantage in the near future.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing civilians and areas but avoiding a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its favour.

Existing Situation

Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a just a single week to terminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new proposals based on previous concepts are approaching, 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 based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.