🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction

The succession of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are fought: optimistic declarations are issued from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "peace".

After-Dark Attacks

As Russia's attack progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is capable of detecting projectile deployments from enemy soil, a ability enabled by current data. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.

Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense engaged: multiple launches targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every firing jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from ruin and another blackout.

Persistent Threats

Soon after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.

Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the early updates: several casualties, devastation and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on Western support – a need that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.

Every new proposal from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, certainly, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership operates on a assumption familiar among international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.

The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.

Opposing Positions

Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the result.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its benefit.

Current Realities

Factually, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.

These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.

Summary and Prospects

It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.

While new proposals based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and show specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity 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 repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.