Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after Ukraine-US talks in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are waged: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Moscow forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nighttime Reality
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from Russian territory, a ability enabled by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile aerial threats flew past – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: multiple launches deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, probably supplied through partner states. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly becomes sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from catastrophe and another blackout.
Ongoing Risks
Not long after, a automatic firearm fired at a drone close by, part of a defensive team – probably Western-made equipment. Regrettably, the bullets missed the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a reliance that European nations are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, debate and deep concern – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They manage the tension but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration presumes that it is unrealistic to force Russia to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that duration works to their advantage – that Ukraine and its allies are nearing depletion. Their motivation to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's government remains completely certain in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.
Present Conditions
Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their mission will now be much harder after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new initiatives based on previous concepts are approaching, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and show certain reluctance to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
