Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on managing certain initiatives. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the main instrument for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a capacity enabled by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been scrambled to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably provided by allied countries. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone close by, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its objective.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: seven people killed, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still maintained normal activities – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to replace in the short term.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. US administration operates on a assumption well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
Assessment and Future
It took a just a single week to kill the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.
While new initiatives 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 counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.