Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are released from different nations. Significant resources is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the main instrument for achieving "settlement".
After-Dark Attacks
As military strikes unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track projectile deployments from across the border, a ability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to intercept incoming aerial threats flew past – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's missile defense activated: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by Western nations. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Soon after, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The detailed framework from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from Washington follows the identical sequence: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, certainly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is tempting to accuse particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to abandon the areas that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its advantage in the months ahead.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, progressively conceding lives and land but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These opposing factors are influencing discussions.
Assessment and Future
It took a mere seven days to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect certain reluctance to modify developments, if they remain united and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the predictable period, mainly require continued Western support.
