Europe experienced widespread relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the presentation of a new comprehensive peace framework for resolving the conflict appeared – briefly – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: a renewed assault of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: positive announcements are released from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is devoted on restraining certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "resolution".
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's exposure was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From observation points, defense planes that had been scrambled to engage hostile guided weapons streaked across the sky – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by NATO members.
Soon thereafter, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons activated: defensive missiles targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely provided by allied countries. Every launch jolts you unexpectedly, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the incoming missile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and further power outages.
Following this, a large-caliber weapon engaged a aerial vehicle in the vicinity, part of a defensive team – almost certainly imported technology. Unfortunately, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it continued its flight toward its destination.
Intermittently, this continued until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the nocturnal offensive. As always, everyone still continued their routines – living the war. But those 24 hours encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on international aid – a need that regional partners are demonstrably unable to fill in the immediate future.
The detailed framework from Washington generated strong feelings, debate and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have seen this script before, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from US leadership adheres to the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They manage the tension but never actually win the battle. This cycle will, certainly, continue.
It is easy to blame specific actors of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington works based on a principle well known to seasoned negotiators: 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 areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The challenge is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does minimal to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.
Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but averting a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its benefit.
Factually, there are no real preconditions for a truce. Now, individual motivations are becoming relevant: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and the government's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any proposal Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not switch to domestic problems. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains quite doubtful that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are driving the talks.
It took a mere seven days to kill the suggested clauses of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, recent disclosures, all did their job.
While new proposals based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are based on Russian demands and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they remain united and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the coming months, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.
Eva de Vries is a passionate book lover and local writer from Eindhoven.
