Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the tension caused by the presentation of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A senior US official spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its countermove: an extensive attack of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are released from various governments. Immense energy is allocated on containing particular approaches. By night, Moscow brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
As Russia's attack unfolded into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor missile launches from across the border, a capacity afforded by timely intelligence. From witness perspectives, Ukrainian air force fighter jets that had been dispatched to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by European allies.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: several firings deployed against a incoming threat. This was a modern interception technology at work, most likely delivered by partner states. Every firing creates sudden vibrations, shaking the windows. The brief panic quickly gives way to sober acceptance: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, sparing the city from ruin and additional electricity failures.
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon opened up on a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely imported technology. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it continued its flight toward its objective.
With pauses, this persisted until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: seven people killed, damage and heating outages in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – experiencing conflict. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the immediate future.
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership provoked deep reactions, discussion and serious worry – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.
Every new initiative from American administration follows the identical sequence: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This pattern will, undoubtedly, continue.
It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. American leadership works based on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have been unable to protect through force. The White House believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the territory that it currently occupies in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from believing that the situation will not evolve additionally in its benefit in the months ahead.
Therefore, Moscow is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their reason to accept conditions that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains highly assured in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing lives and land but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its benefit.
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a armistice. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their focus does not shift toward homefront challenges. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These two forces are guiding negotiations.
It took a just a single week to terminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with soothing efforts of representatives, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter negotiation assaults from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a much faster pace. If they do, no combination of diplomatic or military actions will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the coming months, mainly require ongoing international assistance.
A digital archivist and storyteller passionate about preserving personal histories in the digital age.