🔗 Share this article

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction

The succession of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: optimistic declarations are released from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".

Nighttime Reality

As military strikes progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was exposed. Ukraine is capable of detecting missile launches from Russian territory, a capability afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, defense planes that had been deployed to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The moment of terror quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and further power outages.

Ongoing Risks

Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its destination.

Periodically, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As customarily, everyone still went about their day – living the war. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on international aid – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The 28-point plan from Washington generated strong feelings, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.

Every new initiative from American administration unfolds according to the same pattern: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, certainly, persist.

Strategic Calculations

It is easy to blame certain parties of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the whole story. US administration works based on a assumption well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration assumes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the land that it already controls in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, American administration does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through diplomacy or military means, from assuming that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its supporters are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to end hostilities, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but averting a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: personal goals to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their priority does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.

These two forces 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 Washington, pushback by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.

While new initiatives based on established approaches are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation 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 break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, largely rely on continued Western support.