Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the introduction of a new 28-article proposal for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been defused. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action
The succession of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are fought: positive announcements are issued from various governments. Immense energy is expended on managing particular approaches. By night, the Kremlin brutally reminds the world that, for them, war remains the key method for achieving "resolution".
Nocturnal Warfare
As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to intercept incoming guided weapons streaked across the sky – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: several firings targeted at a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, probably delivered by partner states. Every launch shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly becomes sober acceptance: maybe the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and further power outages.
Continuous Dangers
Not long after, a heavy machine gun engaged a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As always, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours illustrated Ukraine's vital need on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to fill in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from Washington sparked intense emotion, discussion and deep concern – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and bilateral conferences.
Every new proposal from American administration unfolds according to the consistent cycle: a negotiation push against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This cycle will, no doubt, persist.
Strategic Calculations
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington functions according to a premise well known to experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have lost on the battlefield. The US administration assumes that it is unfeasible to force Russia to relinquish the land that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does minimal to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not change more in its benefit in the coming year.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Russian leadership is certain that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their incentive to sign a deal that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be multiple initiatives to end hostilities, but they will persist as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no genuine requirements for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: personal goals to broker a ceasefire and achieve global acclaim, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a just a single week to eliminate the proposed articles of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with pacifying measures of representatives, and finally, current information leaks, all served their function.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they stand together and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, largely rely on continued Western support.
