Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Pattern of Diplomacy and Destruction
The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: optimistic declarations are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the key method for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As Russia's attack developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's exposure was exposed. Ukraine is able to track missile launches from across the border, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming cruise missiles roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons engaged: several firings deployed against a incoming threat. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, probably provided by Western nations. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.
Persistent Threats
Following this, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – most likely Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it maintained course toward its objective.
Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: multiple fatalities, destruction and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those 24 hours demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a need that European nations are clearly incapable to fill in the short term.
Failed Diplomacy
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.
Every new initiative from US leadership unfolds according to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.
Tactical Assessments
It is easy to blame certain parties of repeatedly advocating Moscow's conditions. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington works based on a premise understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot achieve through diplomacy what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to abandon the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's occupied territories.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.
Divergent Views
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its supporters are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the conclusion.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a entire defensive failure until circumstances change in its favour.
Existing Situation
Objectively, there are no genuine requirements for a truce. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to mediate resolution and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after current events, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These opposing factors are driving the talks.
Summary and Prospects
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by American leadership, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on ongoing international assistance.
