The Failure of the 28-Point Peace Proposal for Ukraine: Why Diplomatic Efforts Continue to Falter

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis sparked by the introduction of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – momentarily – to have been contained. A Washington representative spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: a renewed assault of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Peace Talks and Military Action

The chain of contrasting events captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are fought: hopeful statements are issued from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on managing certain initiatives. By night, the Kremlin forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "resolution".

After-Dark Attacks

As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from enemy soil, a capacity afforded by current data. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – sophisticated military planes provided to Ukraine by NATO members.

Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a sophisticated defense system at work, most likely supplied through partner states. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The moment of terror quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't cause damage this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and additional electricity failures.

Ongoing Risks

Following this, a heavy machine gun engaged a unmanned aircraft in the vicinity, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly allied-provided weaponry. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its objective.

Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: several casualties, destruction and heating outages in numerous residences as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a reliance that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to replace in the short term.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The 28-point plan from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after earlier high-level meetings and multilateral gatherings.

Every new approach from Washington adheres to the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, effectively counters. They contain the crisis but never actually secure success. This cycle will, certainly, continue.

Political Considerations

It is easy to blame particular leaders of consistently pushing Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the whole story. Washington operates on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot win at the negotiating table what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is impossible to pressure the Kremlin to surrender the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does little to prevent Kremlin actions, through words or deeds, from assuming that the situation will not shift further in its favour in the coming year.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is convinced that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is virtually nonexistent. There may be multiple initiatives to achieve ceasefire, but they will persist as long as Russia's leader remains supremely confident in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until situations evolve in its advantage.

Current Realities

Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Ukrainian leadership's dual difficulties – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their priority does not switch to domestic problems. And although their task will now be significantly challenging after current events, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.

These conflicting dynamics are guiding negotiations.

Assessment and Future

It took a just a single week to kill the 28 points of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the remaining European nations, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.

While new initiatives based on previous concepts are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter diplomatic offensives from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, 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 defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require continued Western support.