🔗 Share this article

Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A Washington representative spoke of "substantial progress" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Negotiation and Warfare

The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: optimistic declarations are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "settlement".

Nighttime Reality

As the offensive unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, military aircraft that had been dispatched to engage hostile aerial threats roared overhead – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.

Shortly after, Kyiv's air-defence systems activated: defensive missiles fired to intercept a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely supplied through allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The brief panic quickly becomes grim resignation: perhaps the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from devastation and additional electricity failures.

Persistent Threats

Not long after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a drone somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.

Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the morning news: several casualties, damage and infrastructure problems in numerous residences as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a need that European nations are evidently unprepared to fill in the near term.

Unsuccessful Negotiations

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, controversy and serious worry – 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 multilateral gatherings.

Every new initiative from American administration follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame specific actors of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership operates on a assumption understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield. The American government believes that it is impossible to force Russia to surrender the land that it already controls in Ukraine's occupied territories.

The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does nothing to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from believing that the current condition will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.

Divergent Views

Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their incentive to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is close to zero. There may be numerous efforts to achieve ceasefire, but they will continue as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing lives and land but avoiding a entire defensive failure until conditions improve in its benefit.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: political desires to negotiate peace and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not move to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.

These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.

Summary and Prospects

It took a mere seven days to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.

While new proposals based on old ideas are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and enhance their military capacity 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 capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.