Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its countermove: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been deployed to intercept incoming guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably delivered by Western nations. Every launch creates sudden vibrations, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to grim resignation: possibly the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and further power outages.
Ongoing Risks
Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a reliance that regional partners are clearly incapable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The detailed framework from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and serious worry – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new approach from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, continue.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. American leadership functions according to a principle understood by seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, American administration does nothing to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still hold out, progressively conceding people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.
Existing Situation
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.
These opposing factors are guiding negotiations.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to terminate the 28 points of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to alter the situation, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a considerably quicker tempo. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.
