Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: optimistic declarations are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nocturnal Warfare
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a capacity enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from ruin and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone close by, part of a defensive team – most likely allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the bullets missed the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still maintained normal activities – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from Washington generated strong feelings, controversy and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from Washington follows the same pattern: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They contain the crisis but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington 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 unrealistic to compel Moscow to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to deter Moscow, through diplomacy or military means, from thinking that the status quo will not evolve additionally in its advantage in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, the Kremlin is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leadership remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, progressively conceding civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its advantage.
Current Realities
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, personal considerations are coming into play: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – 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 priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a only one week to eliminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect particular unwillingness to alter the situation, if they remain united and strengthen their defence capabilities at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, largely rely on sustained allied backing.
